Open Door Policy

“Because we recognize our own fallibility, we provide those who disagree with us an opportunity to reply…When and where we are not standing for the truth, we pray that God fearing brethren will stand against us and call upon us to repent. We promise to listen to what our brethren have to say in such circumstances and to search the Scriptures to see if the things taught are so.” Mike Willis, [Truth Magazine (Volume XXXV, Number 3), January 7, 1993]

****

“We publish a journal in which dissent is not excluded, in which both sides of an issue may be heard. Therefore, we are happy to provide brother Adams free space and an audience to disagree with us. Not all papers have such an open format.” Mike Willis, [To Wilson Adams (Reply to Wilson Adams)] See: Another Movement Gathers Steam

“Frankly, I resent the implication that you made in such words as the following: ‘The church is being threatened by a new evil. Brethren will divide over whether or not to accept adulterous marriages. You have a voice in Truth magazine. Will that voice be heard, or remain silent due to risks and dangers?’ The implication is that, if I don’t open Truth Magazine for a discussion of the issue that you are promoting to the point of making it a test of fellowship, then I am thereby accepting adulterous marriages! I do not share your conviction and take personal offense at your charge that I am hereby supporting adulterous marriages!” Mike Willis, (E-mail Exchange With Truth Magazine Editor Mike Willis & David McKee, on this website) See: Email Exchange with Truth Magazine Editor Mike Willis & David McKee

See also: Reply To Weldon

“As the desire for a softer, more sophisticated, more positive message grows, we will hear that there has been too much preaching about baptism and the church and too much controversy about doctrine. Cecil Willis once observed,

Some brethren say they get tired of controversy. So do I!!! But the only alternative is capitulation, and the consequence of that is damnation...The wisdom from above will be invoked that all the good within our power may be done, and that no harm at all to any righteous cause will result (Truth Magazine, 1 Nov. 1973, pp. 3-5).

In ‘Truth Magazine and Controversy,’ Connie W. Adams summarized the spirit of the paper from its inception when he said,

‘Yes, this is a militant paper. We mean to keep it so. The devil has not called off the battle yet. There are still surging issues which need to be discussed. Brotherly reserve and restraint ought to be employed. But no quarter should be asked or given in the conflict between truth and error. If we are found in error, then let brethren get out their typewriters and point it out. We can take it.’” Ron Halbrook, Gospel Preaching, Gospel Preachers, Gospel Papers: The Heritage of the Guardian of Truth, Guardian of Truth Magazine, July 20, 1995, pp. 433-436

http://www.truthmagazine.com/truth.html

“Third, we have reached the conclusion that most of the doctrinal issues facing brethren will be fought through the internet rather than through the papers. We are adjusting our approach to reflect this conclusion.  Generally only a small percentage of our readers are interested in the doctrinal conflicts occurring among us.  Most brethren think these doctrinal exchanges are distractive. Some turn off the magazine because they view them as preachers’ fights. I believe that brethren who have this conclusion are wrong and that the issues discussed in the papers are usually very relevant, though they might not be confronting one’s local congregation at the moment.”  Mike Willis, [Truth Magazine, Volume L, Number 13 (July 2006)]

****

“Some cynics think that editors sometimes stir a controversy simply to sell papers. What they do not know is that often, controversy turns off some readers and actually reduces circulation rather than enlarging it. Neither is an editor obligated to print everything sent to him.” Connie W. Adams, Truth Magazine (Volume L, Number 14) August, 2006

“Will each of us continue to ‘fight the good fight of faith’ or will we falter? Will the Guardian of Truth magazine continue its heritage as a medium through which men may ‘fight the good fight of faith,’ or will it falter?” Ron Halbrook, Gospel Preaching, Gospel Preachers, Gospel Papers: The Heritage of the Guardian of Truth, Guardian of Truth Magazine, July 20, 1995, pp. 433-436

http://www.truthmagazine.com/truth.html

“If you think this issue needs to be pressed, you are free to exercise your judgment to press it to the full extent of your ability. You can start your own paper for the purpose of promoting this position. You can challenge brethren to debate you at your home congregation and in that of others who are sympathetic with your desire to push this position to the point of dividing brethren. I learned some time ago that I don’t have to scratch every time someone has an itch to debate.” Mike Willis, (E-mail Exchange With Mike Willis & David McKee, in which brother McKee simply requested that Truth Magazine host a two-sided discussion of the second “putting away” issue) See: Email Exchange with Truth Magazine Editor Mike Willis & David McKee

“Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” by Donnie V. Rader

This is a reprint of a 13 lesson study book on divorce and remarriage:

“An excellent work for class study. We believe brother Rader has rendered a valuable service in the production of this work and commend it to all into whose hands it might fall.” – Connie W. Adams

“I believe it is well written and gets right at the heart of the issues on all the questions you discussed. I would highly recommend it for class study and for personal study. It is objective, clear and thorough. Most of all it is scriptural.” – H. E. Phillips

“Your promises to continue featuring Donnie’s articles and printing his publications will be hurtful to the paper and to all connected with the board and staff. Donnie’s book on MDR now in print teaches several errors, yet it is promoted and pushed as useful in Bible classes. You would not publish Jeff Belknap’s materials. In fact, I doubt Jeff would ever ask that of you or want himself in any way attached to Truth Magazine. Yet, there is not ‘a dime’s worth of difference’ between Belknap’s ideas and opinions and Donnie’s. If so, what are they?” Bill Cavender To Mike Willis Regarding Donnie Rader’s Resignation (Monday, October 03, 2005 3:55 PM)

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
DonniesResignation.htm

Cause(s) For Divorce

“Go back 50 to 100 years and we find a general consensus on divorce and remarriage. The preachers spoke by and large with one voice. Divorce was taught to be wrong, except for the cause of adultery. Preachers consistently contended that only fornication constituted grounds for divorce.” Weldon E. Warnock, Does Teaching What God Says Lead To Endless Divisions?, Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 1, pp. 11-12 (January 2, 1992)

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume36/
GOT036007.htm

“Given the fact that one may have to leave his wife and children in order to serve the Lord, the Bible does not teach, ‘The only cause for divorce is fornication.’ That simply is not a true statement.” Mike Willis, Editor’s Reply, Bible Causes of Divorce and the Role of Government in Divorce, A Discussion Between Ed Bragwell, Sr. and Mike Willis (p. 27)

“One exception: Fornication. Jesus gave one exception (and only one) to the rule he just stated. While there are many reasons one might divorce (personal dislike, incompatibility, or irreconcilable differences), Jesus allowed only one. He said, ‘except it be for fornication’ (vs. 9). God’s law approves of one divorcing his/her mate for the cause of fornication.” Donnie V. Rader, Lecture given at Florida College (February 8, 2001), What God Has Joined Together - Jesus on Marriage (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-12)

http://www.truthmagazine.com/fclecture2001.html

“1 Corinthians 7:10-11 shows that the position which argues that ‘fornication is the only cause for divorce’ is wrong.” Mike Willis, Editor’s Reply, Bible Causes of Divorce and the Role of Government in Divorce (p. 30), A Discussion Between Ed Bragwell, Sr. and Mike Willis

“In connection with the above point, I understand that Christ has given an exception in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. But, did you notice that he has given us one and only one exception?” Jarrod Jacobs, [Truth Magazine, “Divorce and Remarriage” (June 20, 2002)]

“The Scriptures allow for situations where one might have to divorce his mate in order to live for Christ.” Mike Willis, Editor’s Reply, Bible Causes of Divorce and the Role of Government in Divorce, A Discussion Between Ed Bragwell, Sr. and Mike Willis (p. 21)

“When two people cannot get along and they decide to break up their home in the absence of adultery, it is a sinful tragedy…” Ron Halbrook, Divorce and Remarriage: No Waiting Game, Guardian of Truth, Mar. 18, 1993, pp. 168-69

“If one must separate from his mate in order to serve his God, that is exactly what he should do!” Mike Willis, Sermon Outline: When Is Divorce A Sin? (preached at large)

“The differences between Moses and Christ can be summarized as follows:

                                    Moses

…Man permitted to put away wife for conduct short of fornication…

Christ

…Man not permitted to put away wife for conduct short of fornication…” Ron Halbrook, [Matthew 19 and Deuteronomy 24: Moses and Christ, Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 1, pp. 3-6 (Jan. 4, 1990)]

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume34/
GOT034003.htm

“I made the statement in one of my meetings with some of you here that I believed that if someone divorced their wife except for fornication they sinned. I stand right here before you apologizing for making that statement. I don’t believe that anymore…” Bobby Holmes, Marriage and Divorce, Northside church of Christ, Mansfield, TX (6/26/05)

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
BobbyHolmesOnMulticausesForBiblical
PuttingAway.htm

“Mental Divorce”

“This position states that some put away people can remarry (e.g. one put away for some cause other than fornication whose mate remarries first). In application it says that when Jack puts away Jill (for being a poor cook) that, though that is a civil divorce, they are not really divorced. It is called a divorce only ‘accommodatively.’ If Jack then remarries another woman, he, being guilty of adultery can be put away mentally by Jill. This is the ‘real’ divorce. Now she is free to remarry. Some would suggest that, in this case, Jill would have to have fought the divorce all the way.” Donnie V. Rader, “Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” [Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) p. 74]

(Connie W. Adams wrote the Foreword)

“He denounces the concept that Jesus used the terms marriage and divorce in an accommodative sense to refer to a marriage or divorce which is approved in the sight of man but not in the sight of God. He said that there is nothing in the Bible about an accommodative use of the term marriage. He did not examine the scriptural evidence I cited to show the Bible uses language that way: Mark 6:17-18 (Herodias was still called Herod Phillip’s wife after their divorce); 10:11-12 (adultery is committed against one’s wife even after the divorce); Luke 16:18 (the adultery committed is presumed to have violated the marriage of the first husband); and I Corinthians 7:10-11 (the woman who departs is ‘unmarried’ but can be reconciled to her ‘husband’).” Mike Willis, Final Rejoinder, Bible Causes of Divorce and the Role of Government in Divorce, A Discussion Between Ed Bragwell, Sr. and Mike Willis (pp. 65-66)

“The question I would like to ask the mental divorce advocates is what did Jesus mean when he used the expressions ‘put away’ and ‘marry another’? Did he mean really put away or only accommodatively? Did he mean really marry another or only accommodatively? Remember that in the above statement that he only uses those expressions one time. Thus, if he means really divorced and remarried it has that meaning in points 1 and 2 above. If he meant they were divorced and remarried only accommodatively then it has that meaning in points 1 and 2 above. Our brethren are going to have to make up their minds. If we try to make it go both directions we make Jesus guilty of equivocating.” Donnie V. Rader, “Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” [Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) p. 75]

“And so, in conclusion from this, we learn that an unscriptural divorce releases neither party from marriage. When you have an unscriptural divorce, as men count it, it’s not so with God. That bond is still intact. And that little piece of paper is nothing in the sight of God. Just as well use it as Kleenex and blow your nose and drop it in the toilet. It doesn’t mean a thing to God. God’s law rules over the laws of men.” Ron Halbrook, [Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage, Wilkesville, OH (6-14-90)]

An excerpt of an MDR sermon by Ron Halbrook given in Wilkesville, OH

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
RonHalbrookExcerptsfromCarriageDriveSermon
.htm

“Why not just take Jesus at his word when he says that she is put away and marries another (whether it is scriptural or not)? Something is wrong when we have to read ‘actual’ or ‘accommodative’ into the passage. Such confusion violates basic rules of interpretation.

There is no reason to say that ‘put away’ or ‘marry’ is used in an accommodative sense. A general rule of interpretation is that all words and sentences are to be taken literally unless for sound reasons they cannot be (cf. Robert Milligan, Reason and Revelation, p. 332).” Donnie V. Rader, “Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” [Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) p. 77]

(Connie W. Adams wrote the Foreword)

“Think of your question in the light of Mk. 6:17-18: Herod & Herodias broke the law but did not dissolve the obligations & demands of the marriage law—notice carefully John’s wording. She left Philip (violating Matt. 19:6 principle), & Herod had her (was ‘married’ to her= accommodative language, because not joined by God in marriage), but it was not lawful to have her. Man can break the human side of the relationship (i.e. walk away from his mate) but cannot dissolve the divine bond or obligation. Also, consider Rom. 7:1-3 on this point. It speaks of being married to another person, but God doesn’t join them, doesn’t set in place the divine bond.” Ron Halbrook, [Email letters to various brethren (2-13-98)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
RonHalbrookEmails-Spring2001.htm

“If an unscriptural divorce is not a real divorce in the eyes of God, then why did Jesus say ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife, except…’? The exception shows that it is possible to be divorced though it is not approved of God.” Donnie V. Rader, “Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” [Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) p. 76

“That assumes the first putting away is done by the procedure prescribed by civil law. I deny that it is. Where do you find a legal proceeding, court action, a court or the judicial procedure in God’s word as it pertains to divorce and remarriage? They are not there. There are, however, principles which show us what is involved in biblical putting away, sundering of the marriage or the other synonyms used in Scripture. As I have already stated, that is the only time ‘putting away’ takes place.” Harry Osborne, [e-mail letter (4-15-01)]

“When a divorce has occurred and then later on one party commits adultery, then it cannot be said that this initial putting away was for fornication. What happens after that fact cannot be the cause of it.” Connie W. Adams, [Reply to “Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage,” Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“What’s the only way we can look at it scripturally? God’s word talks about cause. That’s where we focus, and we leave it there. When one builds a timeframe and says when that judges brings the gavel down, that’s when everything is judged by, and you’ve got to act before that process finishes (by that judge gaveling it), where is that in the word…” Harry Osborne,

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/Harry
OsbornePadenCityAudioQuotes.htm

“He brought up a case in which divorce occurred which was not for fornication, then stated that should the one putting the other away remarry, the other party could then put the husband away ‘in purpose of heart’ and be free to remarry. This involves the notion of mental putting away after the fact of actual divorce and termination of anything that might even resemble a marriage.” Connie W. Adams, [Editorial, Searching the Scriptures, March 1986]

“A few more words need to be said about ‘mental divorce.’ Connie seems to think that the legal divorce at the courthouse precludes any further action in doing what God allows. He thinks that any subsequent activity could only be mental, hence, he concludes that it is ‘mental divorce.’” Weldon E. Warnock, [My Rejoinder on Divorce and Remarriage, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“As to ‘mental divorce,’ what else can you call it when two people are already divorced and one remarries and then the other ‘in purpose of heart’ puts away that spouse who has remarried?” Connie W. Adams, [Reply to “Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage,” Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“DW believes that no faithful husband or wife may remarry IF the adultery, fornication, of the guilty mate does not occur before there is a departure and spatial separation.” Bill Cavender, [A Response To Brother David Watts, Jr. – Part 2, Gospel Truths (Volume XV, Number 12) December 2004]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/A
ResponseToBillCavender-DWattsJr.htm

“Some argue that the one who has been put away (for a cause other than fornication) can remarry if their former mate remarries first. Others argue that if one is put away by a mate who has committed fornication, he can remarry. Neither of these are authorized by the Lord. In contrast, Jesus said, ‘and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery’ (Mt. 19:9b; 5:32b; Luke 16:18).” Donnie V. Rader, Truth Magazine, “The Plain Truth About Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage” (Volume XLII, Number 12) June 18, 1998]

http://www.truthmagazine.com/smooththings.html

“But if he commits adultery (before or after his action in the courts of man), there is something else to be said by divine law-by the moral and spiritual law of the court of God. She now may put away, reject, or divorce him as a moral and spiritual act. Some suggest that this would be a mere mental or emotional farce-a whim, or a meaningless abstraction. Certainly her intellect and emotions are involved, but the action involves her whole being.” Ron Halbrook, [Notes and Thoughts for Further Study, 1986] http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/Notes
ForFurtherStudy.htm

“This assumes that ‘against her’ refers to the first wife. There is nothing that demands that interpretation. It is very possible that it refers to the second wife. ‘Another’ (which refers to the second wife) is the nearest antecedent. Nigel Turner suggests that the word epi which is translated ‘against’ has the meaning here of ‘with’ (The Bible Translator, Oct. 1956, pp. 151‑152). Thus, when he remarries, he commits adultery with her (the second wife). (cf. Nestle’s Text and The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. one, p. 409.) Donnie V. Rader, [“Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) p. 85]

“But divorce in civil court + fornication = socially acceptable ADULTERY! It is still adultery against the innocent mate just as described in Mk 10:12. According to this argument, if the fornicator can get his legal papers before fornicating, he can preclude the innocent mate from exercising the divine prerogative of putting away the guilty party & marrying another. By this argument, the innocent party would thus commit adultery!?!?” Ron Halbrook, (hand written comments on an article written by Windell Wiser, sent out with other materials to a preacher.)

Ron’s commentary to an article by Windell Wiser (sent out by Ron in early Spring, 2001)

“There is not a word in Mark 10:11 about remarriage on the part of a put away one. If we grant that ‘against her’ refers to the first wife, so what? Neither this nor any other passage says one thing about her being able to remarry.” Donnie V. Rader, [“Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) p. 85]

(Connie W. Adams wrote the Foreword)

“The adultery in Mark 10:11 is against (epi) his former wife. Translations having ‘against’ are: KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, NIV, Williams, Goodspeed, and others. Then there is Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon that has ‘against’ (235). Therefore, whenever a man commits fornication after divorcing his wife, he commits adultery against his former wife. She may then put him away (dismiss, repudiate) for fornication and marry another (Matt. 19:9). The same would be true with the husband in Mark 10:12.” Weldon E. Warnock, [Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“There is a good deal of tension now over what is being called ‘mental divorce’ in which a party who was put away for some other cause than fornication may later put away a mate who either marries again or else commits adultery after the fact of the divorce. Jesus said, ‘And whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery’ (Matt. 5:32). The same thing is stated in Matthew 19:9. When we have exhausted all the emotional arguments about fairness, and the intricacies of what constitutes ‘putting away,’ these passages will still say what they have always said.’” Connie W. Adams, [Editorial Left-overs; Truth Magazine (August 19, 2004), Volume XLVIII, Number 16]

“Don’t deny a right to the ‘innocent party’ that Jesus, our Master, gave such a one. According to this foolish ‘mental divorce’ opinion(s), if I am reading it right, a woman under the law of Moses fared much better and was treated much better than a woman under Christ. The dismissed woman could go and marry another, according to Deut. 24. Some are saying she can’t do that under the will of God as reaffirmed by Jesus.” Bill Cavender, [From an e-mail letter to Vernon Love (sent 10-05-‘02) posted on this website]

“I would like for those who are so minded as to equate the two to give us a definition of ‘divorce’ and ‘marriage’ that would apply to both those that have and those that don’t have God’s approval.” Donnie V. Rader, “Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” [Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) pp. 77-78]

“‘Unscriptural marriage’ is a term which means they are married in the sight of civil government but not in the sight of God, which is precisely what others mean when they say the text uses ‘marriage’ and ‘divorce’ accommodatively!” Mike Willis, Final Rejoinder, Bible Causes of Divorce and the Role of Government in Divorce, A Discussion Between Ed Bragwell, Sr. and Mike Willis (p. 66)

“Jesus said that the one who is put away commits adultery when he remarries. Where do we learn that? From the second clause of Matthew 19:9. In this clause there is no exception phrase. The exception phrase (of the first clause) will not fit into the second clause in any way: textually, grammatically or logically.” Donnie V. Rader, Lecture given at Florida College (February 8, 2001), What God Has Joined Together - Jesus on Marriage (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-12)

http://www.truthmagazine.com/fclecture2001.html

“The innocent woman in the latter part of the verse (Mt. 19:9; jhb) may do what the innocent man may do in the first part of the verse when fornication is involved.” Weldon E. Warnock, [My Rejoinder on Divorce and Remarriage, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“Thus the text says that the put away one commits adultery no matter who marries first. She may have fought the divorce and protested it till the end. However, the text says if she remarries she commits adultery.

Consider Luke 16:18, where the man puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. Why didn’t Jesus say that she may now put him away mentally and remarry? Rather, he said, ‘and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” Donnie V. Rader, “Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” [Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) pp. 79-80]

(Connie W. Adams wrote the Foreword)

“Next, a man may have enough regard for social convention that he will not go to bed with the ‘cute little thing’ he wants rather than his wife; therefore, he may divorce his wife, then marry the ‘cute little thing,’ thus going to the bed of adultery. Once again, the original marriage bond stays intact under divine law until he commits adultery against his wife; his legal steps do not dissolve the bond put in place when God joined them together (Matt. 19:9). Since his true wife remains faithful to the marriage bond, she & she alone has the right to repudiate the marriage under divine law. She may scripturally do so even when she is not able to do so legally because of legal steps taken by the treacherous husband.” Ron Halbrook, [Email letters to various brethren (2-8-98)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
RonHalbrookEmails-Spring2001.htm

“In lesson 8 we dealt with a number of arguments that are made to justify the mental divorce position. Here we answer several more…

8. ‘Forbidding to marry is a doctrine of the devil (1 Tim. 4:1-ff).’

That contention could be used to prove that all have a right to remarry. That would allow the guilty party and the one put away where no fornication is involved and the one who puts away for a cause other than fornication to remarry. The fact is that there is not one of the advocates of this argument that doesn’t teach that there is someone who can’t remarry.” Donnie V. Rader, [“Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” More Arguments On The Mental Divorce Position; p. 148]

“What’d the Spirit say? The Spirit said, in the latter times, there are some that are going to turn away from the faith…What they’re going to do is, they’re going to forbid to marry and they’re going to command to abstain from meats.

Now, it didn’t say that there are going to be ones who are not going to marry, it said they’re going to forbid to marry…When I say, ‘you can’t marry, I’m forbidding it. You cannot do that without being sinner,’ now I’ve got a problem. Now I’ve done that which is what’s talked about here.” Harry Osborne, [Sermon preached in Paden City, WV on 4-10-03, Fight of Faith or Needless Controversy]

http://mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/Transcript-FightofFaithorNeedlessControvery-HOsborne.htm

“Mental Divorce” & “The Waiting Game”

“I realize that brother Warnock’s illustration involves fornication, but it is after the fact of divorce and not before. It is very difficult for me to see how this is not in reality the ‘waiting game’ for one waits until the other sins and then claims scriptural cause.” Connie W. Adams, [Searching The Scriptures, The Warnock - Deason Exchange (March, 1986)]

“My understanding is that a person who is faithful to the marriage vow and bond when sinfully abandoned and divorced is not involved in a ‘waiting game.’” Ron Halbrook, [Letter written to a brother (6-25-2000), Sent out the Spring of 2001 to a young preacher in his first work along with a huge package of other materials that promote his “classic” mental divorce “application.”]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/Ron
HalbrookExchange-Spring2001.htm

“‘The put away one who can remarry must be one who was against the divorce and opposed it. This eliminates the waiting game which is mutual agreement.’

There is nothing in Matt. 5:32b or 19:9b that suggests that either party was opposed to or both mutually agreed to the divorce. This is an arbitrary rule. I wonder about a case where the couple mutually agree to a divorce, so he puts her away for a cause other than fornication. He then remarries, committing adultery. Can she not put him away mentally and remarry? What passage says she must have opposed the divorce?” Donnie V. Rader, [“Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) pp. 84-85]

(Connie W. Adams wrote the Foreword)

“As I left home to come, I sent my manuscript to two people for proofreading purposes by computer. After their proofreading it, not only they helped get the corrections done, but also I received this statement from Mike Willis: ‘This is to affirm that I have read brother Halbrook’s material. I agreed with him that our differences on how to treat one whose mate is guilty of fornication following a divorce which he tried to avoid is a difference of judgment in the realm of application of the one law of divorce and remarriage and not the teaching of another law.’ Harry Osborne made in essence the same statement. Those are the two who proofread it for me.” Ron Halbrook

[Towards A Better Understanding (False Teachers, Ron Halbrook’s Rebuttal to Bob Owen (pp. 34-35)]. Feb. 3-4, 2000

“When divorce takes place, it is usually a matter of time (waiting) until one or both will remarry. That is the force of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:31-32 ‘causeth her to commit adultery.’ As time passes, the presumption is that she will marry, or give into a sinful relationship outside of marriage. If not, then what is the sense in what Jesus said?” Connie W. Adams, [Reply to “Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage,” Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“I cannot find in my Bible where Jesus or the apostle bound the length of time an innocent person has to wait after a divorce for fornication before he/she can remarry, no more than how long a person has to wait to remarry after the death of a spouse.” Bill Cavender, [A Response To Brother David Watts, Jr. – Part 2, Gospel Truths (Volume XV, Number 12) December 2004]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/A
ResponseToBillCavender-DWattsJr.htm

“Waiting game: If a woman is put away and ‘cannot contain’ and thus remarries before he does, she is guilty of adultery. However, if she does not marry until after he marries first, she is not guilty of adultery we are told. This is the waiting game. She may have to wait him out ten years. But as soon as he remarries, she has the right to mentally put him away and remarry.

I wonder why some of these brethren don’t think the man who puts away his wife (for a cause other than fornication) is free to remarry if she remarried first.” Donnie V. Rader, “Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” [Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry?) p. 82]

“Since his true wife remains faithful to the marriage bond, she & she alone has the right to repudiate the marriage under divine law. She may scripturally do so even when she is not able to do so legally because of legal steps taken by the treacherous husband.

Some object that this makes her guilty of a ‘waiting game’ in violation of Matt. 5:32. To the contrary, she is not guilty of any such sin but is maintaining fidelity to the marriage bond put in place by God!” Ron Halbrook, [Email letters to various brethren (2-8-98)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/Ron
HalbrookEmails-Spring2001.htm

“Mental Divorce” & “The Race To The Courthouse”

“Is it just a race to the lawyer’s office? If the put away one can’t remarry, then it all boils down to who gets to the lawyer’s office first. Right? Wrong! If the guilty party files for divorce the innocent can counter sue. Having tried that, he or she has done all he can do until the Judge has his say. Suppose the Judge accepts the guilty party’s papers instead of the innocent. The innocent could let it be known to the court and to the brethren that he or she is agreeing to the divorce because his or her mate has committed fornication. Our problem concerning the race to the lawyer’s office is due to the fact that we are mistaking the ‘filing’ for divorce (the intent) with the final ‘putting away.’” Donnie V. Rader, [“Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?,” Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry)]

“This makes the whole thing hinge on the civil action – who gets to the court 1^st, or who can afford the best (or most crooked) lawyer.

Civil law will grant a divorce which God will not grant or accept. THEN civil law will refuse to recognize the divorce which God grants to a person. You have man’s law OVER God’s!” Ron Halbrook, [Personal Comments besides Windell Wiser’s article: “Who May Scripturally Marry Again?;” Sent out the Spring of 2001 to a young preacher in his first work along with a huge package of other materials that promote his “classic” mental divorce “application.”]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/Halbrooks
NotesOnWhoMayScripturallyMarryAgain.htm

“We can quibble about ‘who gets to the courthouse first’ and the like, but the Lord still said, ‘Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.’ It is not binding where Jesus did not bind to say that one who has been divorced is not free to marry for that is precisely what Jesus said.” Connie W. Adams, Truth Magazine, Editorial Left-overs (Volume XLVIII, Number 16) August 19, 2004

“In my opinion the whole crux of this controversy is over getting to the courthouse, at least in the United States. The innocent party must file or counter-sue for a divorce or he/she would be the put away and then not permitted to marry, as some reason.” Weldon E. Warnock, [Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“Weldon thinks that the crux of the matter is who gets to the courthouse first. I do not believe God is bound by what ungodly men may rule, but I do believe that we are bound by what God said about one who is put away having the right to remarry. Customs and laws which regulate marriage and divorce may vary from place to place, but in every culture there is a recognized point at which two people are married and at which one puts away the other.” Connie W. Adams, [Reply to “Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage,” Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“Now what form does that need to take (i.e. matrimony, jhb)? What procedure has to be mandated there? I don’t know. Someone could come along and say, When exactly does that take place? Here the specific point in our society at which this takes place. I have a hard time figuring that out with regard to marriage in all the time but I don’t have a hard time figuring out who is married, do you? I could not make the legal procedure the point that binds a marriage.” Harry Osborne, [Sermon, “What is Biblical Putting Away?,” Lakeland, FL (5-29-01)]

“Mental Divorce” & The Silence of The Scriptures

“Brethren defending these false theories almost invariably appeal to the premise that divine silence permits people to remain in marriages contrary to what Jesus stated. The absence of a specific prohibition is cited as authority, contrary to 1 Peter 4:11 (‘If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.’). This reflects and reinforces a departure from the fundamental precepts of Bible authority. Rather than appealing to positive divine authority for their position, false teachers make such arguments as, ‘Where does the Bible say certain people cannot remain in their marriages?’ As we have learned from past apostasies, when one practice is justified by appealing to a perversion of divine silence, other practices are soon justified on the same basis. This makes division inevitable.” Ron Halbrook, Guardian of Truth, Are We Doomed to Divide over Every Difference on Divorce and Remarriage? (Volume XL, Number 16) August 15 and (Volume XL, Number 17) September 5, 1996

http://www.truthmagazine.com/doomedtodivide.html

“But, some object that Jesus does not detail a case like the one we are considering, therefore this innocent party has no grounds to remarry. The fact is that Jesus does not attempt to list, catalogue, & analyze all the situations which may occur, along with all the legal complications which may arise in different cultures & legal systems. The Bible would be set of encyclopedias if he had done so! He gave the principles of divine law, which we must then apply to situations & cases as they arise. Sound brethren are agreed on what the principles are, but we at times wrestle with how the principles apply to certain cases. Matt. 19:9(b) does not make a blanket statement covering all people who may have been put away in some sense.” Ron Halbrook, [Email letters to various brethren (2-8-98)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/Ron
HalbrookEmails-Spring2001.htm

“The silence of the scriptures must be respected. We must do all things by the authority of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17). We must always act within the doctrine of Christ (2 Jno. 9). To go onward and beyond what is authorized is to have not God. God’s silence is not permission to act…

The Bible is as silent about a second putting away as it is about the remarriage of a put away one.” Donnie V. Rader, [“Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?,” Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry)]

“DW believes that no faithful husband or wife may remarry IF the adultery, fornication, of the guilty mate does not occur before there is a departure and spatial separation. Jesus never spoke about such a condition and never bound such a stipulation.” Bill Cavender, [A Response To Brother David Watts, Jr. – Part 2, Gospel Truths (Volume XV, Number 12) December 2004]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/A
ResponseToBillCavender-DWattsJr.htm

“Mental Divorce” & Adultery

“Jesus said that the one who is put away commits adultery when he remarries. Where do we learn that? From the second clause of Matthew 19:9. In this clause there is no exception phrase. The exception phrase (of the first clause) will not fit into the second clause in any way: textually, grammatically or logically. The one who is put away (whether for fornication or some other cause) does not have a right to remarry.” Donnie V. Rader, Lecture given at Florida College (February 8, 2001), What God Has Joined Together - Jesus on Marriage (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-12)

http://www.truthmagazine.com/fclecture2001.html

“All my life I have urged and cautioned divorced, put away, people NOT to remarry, although Jesus gave innocent, divorced people a right of remarriage, when his/her spouse has been guilty of adultery.” Bill Cavender, [A Response To Brother David Watts, Jr. – Part 2, Gospel Truths (Volume XV, Number 12) December 2004]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/A
ResponseToBillCavender-DWattsJr.htm

“Am I insensitive to the problems one may face because he has been mistreated? Of course not! But the truth is that often innocent people are made to suffer for the wrongs of others. ‘Well, it isn’t fair!’ Listen, it is fair to do right. Two wrongs still do not make one right. Who are those of whom the Lord spoke who are ‘eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake’? Take your brush and paint me as black as you can, but when your art work is done the Lord still said, ‘Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.’” Connie W. Adams, [Emotional Arguments, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 3), February 3, 2005]

“And then, here’s the latest one that’s come along, just in the last few years. And that is this idea that no put away person, no one who’s been divorced may remarry. Now, that is one of the most irrational, absurd positions that’s come along in a long time.” Weldon Warnock

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
BrotherWarnocks19YearProgressionOfError.htm

****

“Ida was an innocent, put away, divorced woman. Jesus gave her the right to remarry.” Bill Cavender, Truth Magazine, “Observations and Experiences Regarding Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (2)” (April 1, 2004)

“Kittel, in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 4, page 733 said, ‘The remarriage of a man after divorcing his wife or the remarrying of the divorced woman is tantamount to adultery, Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9.’ In other words, Jesus regards these cases as adultery. He makes them equivalent to adultery, equal to adultery. They are adultery, and so tantamount—equal in significance, and the effect of such conduct, Galatians 5:19-21, it’s the work of the flesh and we cannot inherit the Kingdom.” Ron Halbrook, [Sermon—Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Carriage Drive church of Christ, Beckley, WV (5-30-91)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/RonHalbrook
ExcerptsfromCarriageDriveSermon.htm

“That good woman, who made such a blunder, is still single. She was unjustly ‘put away’ in a civil court of men by an ungodly mate but in the court of heaven she is innocent and could remarry if she desired to do so.” Bill Cavender

Truth Magazine, “Observations and Experiences Regarding Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (4)” (May 20, 2004)

“‘The boys’ want to be treated with dignity, love and gentleness. They decry the spirit by which one brother reviews another’s error. But their desire to be treated with dignity, love and gentleness (which is usually afforded them) is returned by caustic criticism toward ‘journalistic jingoism,’ ‘watchdogs,’ ‘buzzards,’ ‘brotherhood super-visors,’ etc. One thing is clear: let a brother teach that an adulterous marriage is okay and he will be treated with dignity, love and gentleness by his ‘brothers.’ But let someone expose the error of adulterous marriages and those who are willing to fellowship that error and he will be boiled in oil!” Tom M. Roberts, Attitudes Toward Gospel Preaching; Privacy: “Lets Keep This Among Us Boys!”  MOVE TO FELLOWSHIP

http://www.watchmanmag.com/0103/010301.htm

“It does not become any of us to develop tunnel vision and focus on one issue to the neglect of other needed things. Neither is it helpful to array brethren against one another and seek to drive wedges. None of us reacts very well to attempts to treat us as puppets on a string who jump when the string is pulled by some nervous brother who seems to know exactly what you need to say, to whom, when to say it, and how to go about it.” Connie W. Adams, [Reply to “Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage,” Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“Adultery” Compared With The War Question

“If the divorce and remarriage issue is parallel to the head covering issue or carnal warfare, then we are obligated to receive into our fellowship those who teach and practice error on adulterous marriages. If one is not willing to make this application, why make the argument?” Tom M. Roberts, [Fellowship, The Burnet Meeting (February, 2000)]

http://www.cedarparkchurchofchrist.org/tabu/
fellow_roberts.htm

****

“In the debate over the Marriage-Divorce-Remarriage Issue some have argued that we need to tolerate all views, just like people tolerate views on whether or not it is lawful for a Christian to serve in the military and go to war. Personally, I find such a view insulting…” Mark Dunagan, Turth Magazine, Just Like The War Question?

http://www.truthmagazine.com/likewar.html

“Most brethren who disagree on this issue have been tolerant toward one another and not divisive. This saddens me that this issue is alienating brethren, and while we are fighting one another, the world out here is being by and large, ignored… I am wondering what will come along next to disturb the church? The war question? I can see some brethren now who say that killing in all wars is murder. Hence, those serving in the Armed forces, including brethren, are murderers or accessories to the fact. What kind of label that issue would be given, we will have to wait to see. War is a nasty thing, but men and women sometimes have to go to retain our freedom.” Weldon E. Warnock, Public Correspondence With Weldon E. Warnock (July 8, 2002)

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
WeldonEWarnockCorrespondence.htm

“Mental Divorce” & “A Litmus Test”

“In a sermon on ‘Fellowship’ at Concord, NC, brother Owen was asked about those who would make the divorce and remarriage issue a test of fellowship. Brother Owen responded, ‘But that of course, is what I had in mind a moment ago when I used the expression, ‘a litmus test.’ In the last several years, some brethren have focused on the divorce and remarriage issues. And have pushed it to the point that if anybody differs with them on that point, they not only say I don’t agree with you, or I teach something different, but they’re using this label, ‘You become a false teacher.’” Donnie Rader, (A Response to Bob Owen’s Statement About My Lecture)

http://www.truthmagazine.com/replytoowen.html

“In the minds of some this issue has become a litmus test as to whether or not some of us can work together in a private publishing business which is not the church, is not supported by contributions from churches, and which does not attempt to do the work of the church.” Connie W. Adams, Truth Magazine, Reply to “Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage” (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005

“The doctrine of Christ does not allow judgments – either we obey or we do not obey the doctrine of Christ. The expression ‘litmus test’ has been used. Brother Pickup used the word ‘case law.’ When you use the word ‘case law’ and apply that to the music question or the Lord’s Supper or institutionalism, the doctrine of Christ is clear. The doctrine of Christ is clear on the matter of the Lord’s Supper. Now call that ‘case law’ if you want to, call that a ‘litmus test’ if you want. The doctrine of Christ is understandable, the doctrine of Christ is teachable.” Tom Roberts, [Fellowship, Tom Roberts Rebuttal to Harry Pickup, Jr. (February, 2000)]

http://www.cedarparkchurchofchrist.org/tabu/
fellow_roberts_rebuttal.htm

“It was not until brother Belknap arrived on the scene and cranked up his computer that confusion and dissension on MDR started. He began putting on his website every little tidbit of those with whom he disagreed and presenting it in the context of heresy. He set out to poison the minds of some of the members in Beckley that I was a false teacher. He claims he interrogated all preachers who were, and are, scheduled to hold meetings at Beckley as to their position on MDR. If they did not pass the litmus test, the meeting was cancelled.” Weldon E. Warnock, Truth Magazine (July 21, 2005, Volume XLIX, Number 14) 

http://www.truthmagazine.com/webpdf/
MDRdebatechallengeAccepted.pdf

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
ReplyToWeldon.htm

“Mental Divorce” & “Hard To Understand”

“Similarly, when men understand the Bible, they necessarily understand it alike. The Bible is just as definite in its answers of what is the will of God as is the subject of mathematics. There are not a hundred different answers to the subjects addressed by the Bible any more than there are 100 different answers to the equation 2 + 2 = x.” Mike Willis, [Guardian of Truth (Volume XXXVII, Number 23), December 2, 1993]

“Still others disagree over whether the faithful innocent mate in Mark 10:11 may repudiate her adulterous mate and remarry (‘whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another committeth adultery against her’).” Mike Willis, [Adams – Warnock Exchange on Divorce, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“What the New Testament actually says on this subject is not that hard to understand. Jesus taught that a man who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery and that anyone who marries one who is put away commits adultery… Then we are hearing from some who clearly spell out their view that a put away spouse (not for fornication) can remarry after the other one commits adultery. All of this is after the fact and adultery was not the cause of the putting away.” Connie W. Adams, [Emotional Arguments, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 3), February 3, 2005]

“This issue of Truth Magazine contains an exchange between two of the Board Members of the Guardian of Truth Foundation, who also serve as Associate Editor and Staff Writer for the magazine, on the subject of ‘mental divorce’ or ‘the role of civil government in divorce.’ Both men have graciously agreed to state their respective views on this difficult subject, not as bitter enemies preparing for war but as fellowsoldiers discussing some details pertaining to the truth they mutually profess.” Mike Willis, [Adams – Warnock Exchange on Divorce, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“The attitude of many is that issues that surround divorce and remarriage are so difficult and since we all disagree we should let the matter alone and let each individual settle it for himself. If so, shall we ignore those who live contrary to the teaching of Matt. 19:9? Shall we allow people to divorce and remarry and live in adultery and never say a word? Shall we let the preachers and teachers who encourage such relationships pass without notice?” Donnie V. Rader, [“Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” Divorce And Remarriage And Fellowship p. 145]

“Now what form does that need to take? What procedure has to be mandated there? I don’t know. Someone could come along and say, When exactly does that take place? Here the specific point in our society at which this takes place. I have a hard time figuring that out with regard to marriage in all the time but I don’t have a hard time figuring out who is married, do you? I could not make the legal procedure the point that binds a marriage.” Harry Osborne, [Sermon, “What is Biblical Putting Away?,” Lakeland, FL (5-29-01)]

“We have an ever increasing number of ‘grey areas.’ Jesus said, ‘Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free’ (John 8:32). ‘Buy the truth and sell it not’ (Prov. 23:23). Truth can be ascertained. Marriage is the most basic of all human relationships. Can we not know the will of God on such a fundamental issue? This is at the bottom of the shift in the content of preaching we are hearing. The fear of appearing to be authoritarian, dogmatic, or one of those ‘black or white guys’ has led to watered-down preaching with its story telling, personal experiences, lessons from movies or television shows. Reading a passage of Scripture, putting it in context and then coming straight at the audience with practical applications would be a great novelty in some pulpits now.” Connie Adams Truth Magazine, The Harrell Booklet on the Bounds of Christian Unity, April 2, 1998

“And you know, we weren’t bothered with this back just a few years ago. Some fellows have come along today, and they have become adamant and zealots for it, and ah, they’re right, it’s all black and white, and if you don’t agree with me, you’re a heretic, and that’s nonsense. Ladies and gentlemen, that’s the most absurd thing I ever saw or heard of in all of my life.” Weldon E. Warnock, [2-8-04 Radio program (WJLS 99.5 FM, Beckley WV) sponsored by the Beech Creek church of Christ, Meador, WV.]

****

“‘Mental divorce’ is a term with a broad spectrum of meaning. It is not specific enough to identify what one means when he says, ‘This brother believes in ‘mental divorce.’” Mike Willis, [Adams – Warnock Exchange on Divorce, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“In the current controversy over fellowship and divorce and remarriage we are hearing about the ambiguity of Matthew 19:9. We are told that the Biblical teaching on this subject lacks clarity (See: Ed Harrell, Divorce and Fellowship, FC Forum manuscript, 1991; Bob Owen, Taped sermon Sept. 2, 1993, Temple Terrace, FL, Taped sermon, February 19, 1995, Concord, NC). Thus, we can’t be sure. This is said to tell us that we ought not the draw lines of fellowship over what someone teaches on divorce and remarriage. If we can’t understand what Jesus taught or, to say the least, we can’t be sure, then we certainly couldn’t bind what we may conclude on others.” Donnie V. Rader, Lecture given at Florida College (February 8, 2001), What God Has Joined Together - Jesus on Marriage (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-12)

http://www.truthmagazine.com/fclecture2001.html

“I, nor any other man, nor all men collectively, could never ‘answer’ all the problems, even if we attempted to try, and even if we could understand the problems! By the time one problem would be settled (I’ve lived to learn that no problem is ever REALLY settled and put to rest among my brethren), there would be a dozen more, figuratively speaking.” Bill Cavender

[A Response To Brother David Watts, Jr., Gospel Truths (Volume XV, Number 11) November 2004]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
AResponseToBillCavender-DWattsJr.htm

“A myth has been promoted in many areas about God’s teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage (mdr) that it is too difficult to understand, that there is a lack of clarity concerning it, and that there are so many divergent views none can be sure about the actual truth. This is fallacious and a charge against the integrity of the inspired message of God. The Holy Spirit speaks to reveal, not conceal; to edify, not confuse; to unify, not divide. God has revealed the whole truth (Jn. 14; 16); it is understandable (Eph. 3:4; John 8:32), and we are foolish if we don’t understand it (Eph. 5:17).” Tom M. Roberts, Divorce, Remarriage and Fellowship, Outline of Lesson, December 6, 1998

http://www.watchmanmag.com/0202/020217.htm

“What DW sees in others, good or bad, right or wrong, will benefit him in his decisions, in his work for and in his walk with the Lord toward eternity. And if he has judgment enough to comprehend, and humility enough to admit that he doesn’t know it all, whatever ‘all’ is, and if he will avoid theories and opinions, he will be a good, faithful and profitable servant.” Bill Cavender, [A Response To Brother David Watts, Jr., Gospel Truths (Volume XV, Number 11) November 2004]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
AResponseToBillCavender-DWattsJr.htm

“We cannot consider ourselves spiritually mature on the subject of marriage, divorce, remarriage and adultery by convincing ourselves that it is a difficult subject to understand, or that since adultery is open to a variety of studied and sincere opinions and conclusions, we cannot be certain what God’s will and word is. We are equally wrong to suggest that the truly mature Christian correctly approaches the subject of adultery by agreeing to disagree.” Joe R. Price, [Biblical Principles of Unity and Fellowship (Part One of Four)]

http://www.watchmanmag.com/0107/010712.htm

“These notes (from Ron’s Notes for Further Study linked below, jhb) reflect on some difficult points regarding marriage and divorce…” Ron Halbrook, [Tactics of Error, Triumph of Truth, posted to Bible Matters (2-28-03)]:

“If he has unlawful sexual relations with another (whether before or after he wrongfully puts away his true mate), his true mate has scriptural grounds to reject or put him away.”

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
NotesForFurtherStudy.htm

“Mental Divorce” & Fellowship

“The scripture also condemns those who ‘approve of those who practice them’ (v. 32). Yet there are those ‘among the boys’ who teach egregious error about adulterous marriages and their ‘brothers’ are willing to associate with them, use them in gospel meetings, support them, and condemn those who oppose their error.” Tom M. Roberts, Attitudes Toward Gospel Preaching; Privacy: “Lets Keep This Among Us Boys!”

http://www.watchmanmag.com/0103/010301.htm

“Let me frankly say that among the Guardian of Truth Board Members and staff writers for the magazine, we have some disagreements in these areas. We humbly respect each other’s conscience and work together as one, based on our common commitment to the one law of divorce (one man, one woman, one exception) which Jesus revealed in Matthew 19:9 and other passages.” Mike Willis, [Adams – Warnock Exchange on Divorce, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“When a man teaches that one who has no right to remarry can remarry, his teaching leads his hearer to commit adultery. Most agree that we can’t fellowship the man who is in adultery. However, we are told we can fellowship the man who teaches him that it is scriptural.” Donnie V. Rader, Lecture given at Florida College (February 8, 2001), What God Has Joined Together - Jesus on Marriage (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-12)

http://www.truthmagazine.com/fclecture2001.html

“The implication is that, if I don’t open Truth Magazine for a discussion of the issue that you are promoting to the point of making it a test of fellowship, then I am thereby accepting adulterous marriages! I do not share your conviction and take personal offense at your charge that I am hereby supporting adulterous marriages!” Mike Willis, (E-mail Exchange With Truth Magazine Editor Mike Willis & David McKee, on this website) See: Email Exchange with Truth Magazine Editor Mike Willis & David McKee

“With this series of articles, we intend to study the tendency to broaden fellowship beyond that which Christ has endorsed in His gospel (2 Jno. 9-11; Eph. 5:7-11). We must carefully study the teaching of Christ’s gospel which bears upon the topic of unity and fellowship among brethren, and then carefully obey it to be approved by God (2 Tim. 2:15).” Joe R. Price, [Biblical Principles of Unity and Fellowship (Part One of Four)]

http://www.watchmanmag.com/0107/010712.htm

“Let no one surmise that because of this exchange that Connie and I have become enemies and have ostracized one another…You might say there has been a lot of togetherness. And, besides all of these things, his oldest son, Wilson, married our daughter, Julie. So, we’ll just go on together.” Weldon E. Warnock, [Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“Brethren, opposition to sin is impotent when you fellowship it! No one will take seriously brother Owen or anyone else who agrees to a scholarly and academic discussion of sin without condemning the practice, even while extending brotherly fellowship in its warmest sense.” Tom M. Roberts, Guardian of Truth Magazine (Volume XLI, Number 6) Bob Owen on Fellowship, Rubel Shelly and Bob Owen: A Deadly Parallel, March 20, 1997, pp. 166-172

“Over the years we have been as close as any brothers in the flesh could ever be. He is a good student of the word and an able preacher of it as well. Our lives have been brought together as entertainers, preachers, in debates, in publishing work (both with Searching the Scriptures and Truth Magazine), and now we are grandpas-in-law! We don’t intend to stop being friends.” Connie W. Adams, [Reply to “Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage,” Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“How can those who are such vocal critics of those associated with Truth Magazine on the ‘mental divorce’ issue participate in lectureships with those who condemned brethren for drawing a line of fellowship against Homer Hailey, conduct meetings with congregations where the editors of Christianity Magazine work, and ignore others who also have acknowledged their agreement with the position brother Patton espoused in the Phillips-Patton discussion.” Mike Willis, [Truth Magazine, “Adams – Warnock Exchange on Divorce” (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

To my knowledge, the only one involved in the present MDR controversies who has participated in the activities Mike mentions, is his close associate, brother Warnock. Cf. right column.

The Annandale church of Christ, Preacher Training Seminar (November 11-15, 2002), Annandale, VA:

Guest Speakers: Weldon Warnock; Ed Harrell; Bob Owen; Earl Kimbrough; Phil Roberts…

******

The College View Church of Christ Lectures, “The Battle For The Christian’s Mind” (June 14-17, 2004), Florence, AL.:

Guest Speakers: Weldon Warnock; Ed Harrell; “Buddy” Payne…

“Mental Divorce” & “Forbearance” / “Toleration”

“When a brother commits himself to a doctrine in conflict with the word of God that leads those who follow what he teaches to commit sin, the time for forbearance will soon pass. When he circulates his false teaching through various means (private studies, public preaching, published articles and books, etc.), brethren must become concerned for those whom he might influence. This is not a time for forbearance; it is a time for marking the brother.” Mike Willis, [Guardian of Truth Magazine (Volume XXXIX, Number 23), December 7, 1995]

“While brother Adams was editing Searching the Scriptures, the Guardian of Truth Foundation appointed Weldon to serve on its Board and then when the Foundation purchased Searching the Scriptures Connie was added to our Board. That these brethren disagree on the subject before us has been known publicly for over twenty years.” Mike Willis, [Adams – Warnock Exchange on Divorce, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“False teachers will not tolerate the preaching of the truth, though they plead for toleration toward their teaching of error. This is generally true both of those who teach error on divorce and remarriage and those who claim the truth but want unity-in-doctrinal-diversity on the matter.” Ron Halbrook, Guardian of Truth, Are We Doomed to Divide over Every Difference on Divorce and Remarriage? (Volume XL, Number 16) August 15 and (Volume XL, Number 17) September 5, 1996

http://www.truthmagazine.com/doomedtodivide.html

“There are many ramifications to this issue in application and, in my opinion, nobody has the answer to every one of them. What happened to tolerance with some of us? I appreciate Connie’s patience and good attitude in this matter and I trust that I have manifested the same.” Weldon E. Warnock, [My Rejoinder on Divorce and Remarriage, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“To be tolerant toward those whose teaching doesn’t fit Matthew 5 or 19 is to disregard these texts themselves. Thus, if we respect and uphold the teaching of Jesus on divorce and remarriage, we must oppose those who teach otherwise. Let us understand that when there are opposing views on divorce and remarriage, someone is wrong!

When a man teaches that one who has no right to remarry can remarry, his teaching leads his hearer to commit adultery.” Donnie V. Rader, Lecture given at Florida College (February 8, 2001), What God Has Joined Together - Jesus on Marriage (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-12)

http://www.truthmagazine.com/fclecture2001.html

“Concerning Connie Adams, he and I remain the best of friends. I just talked to him on the phone last Saturday. I was a staff writer for Searching the Scriptures, which Connie edited, for many years, even to its final publication in 1992. We differed on this point, but we didn’t go around calling one another a heretic. Such shenanigans would have been stupid. Connie’s attitude toward Ron Halbrook, Larry Hafley and others is one of tolerance and moderation. Why can’t you be of the same persuasion?” Weldon E. Warnock, [Letter (July 8, 2002)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
WeldonEWarnockCorrespondence.htm

“Mental Divorce” & “Unity-In-Diversity”

“As I watch the developments of the unity-in-diversity approach to fellowship, more and more I am convinced that the Homer Hailey incident in 1988-89 was a watershed event among brethren.” Mike Willis, [Truth Magazine, A Movement Gathers Steam (August 1, 2002)]

www.truthmagazine.com/editorial080102.html

****

“Unmasked, unity in diversity is partisan, divisive, sectarian, factional and antithetical to the true unity of the Spirit.” Tom Roberts, [Associate Editorial, Introduction to this Issue]

http://www.watchmanmag.com/0202/020201.htm

“While Connie was editing Searching the Scriptures, Weldon and Jim Deason had an exchange in its pages on this subject. Connie took editorial exception with what Weldon wrote to distance himself from Weldon’s position. The subject was discussed and dropped. These brethren continued to work together in spite of their differences after each one had written what he had to say. It was a healthy exchange of ideas without the breach of fellowship. We anticipate the same in this discussion. Both Weldon and Connie have a commitment to teach and obey the teaching of Jesus on divorce and remarriage.” Mike Willis, [Adams – Warnock Exchange on Divorce, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“If we can ‘accept’ those whom we believe to be sinning, why do we not accept into our fellowship those in adulterous marriages and those who advocate doctrines that would receive adulterers into the local church?...Remember, unity-in-diversity would allow both doctrinal and moral error!” Tom Roberts, [Unity of the Spirit or Unity-in-Diversity] 

http://foresthillschurch.us/communicator/
communicator5.htm

“That brethren associated with Truth Magazine are not agreed on this subject is not news to those who are conversant about what is happening among brethren.” Mike Willis, [Adams – Warnock Exchange on Divorce, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“Fervent, sincere appeals for unity based upon truth are always in order, but false teachers seeking tolerance for their errors always raise the specter and phantom of endless divisions over every possible difference. Brethren promoting a false unity-in-doctrinal-diversity scare up the same ghost, offering their theories as the only alternative. Some brethren who know the truth on divorce and remarriage will not take an unmistakably clear stand for the truth and will not openly oppose and assail false doctrine. They are intimidated by the fear that to do so will result in division every time a difference of any kind occurs. This article will show that such fears are unfounded.” Ron Halbrook, Guardian of Truth, Are We Doomed to Divide over Every Difference on Divorce and Remarriage? (Volume XL, Number 16) August 15 and (Volume XL, Number 17) September 5, 1996

http://www.truthmagazine.com/doomedtodivide.html

“‘We’ (‘conservative, faithful’ churches; ‘NI churches,’ as the liberal brethren designate us) are traveling the same road into oblivion, in my judgment. We are a diminishing body of people, both in numbers and in influence, as I view our present existence, being a very small body of religiously divided people in a large sinful world of over six billions of lost souls. There is little evidence that we, as a people, believe or even recognize that this is so. Long ago our spiritual gunsights and hunting scopes turned inwardly upon one another rather than outwardly upon Satan and his wiles (Eph. 6:10-19).” Bill Cavender, [A Response To Brother David Watts, Jr., Gospel Truths (Volume XV, Number 11) November 2004]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
AResponseToBillCavender-DWattsJr.htm

“Mental Divorce” & The Misuse of Romans 14

“You can no more put adulterous marriages into Romans 14 than you can instrumental music or missionary societies. ‘The faith’ will not allow it. Unauthorized practices cannot be rightly included regardless of the degree of honesty and sincerity of the proponents of such practices.” Connie Adams [Truth Magazine, The Harrell Booklet on the Bounds of Christian Unity, April 2, 1998]

“My article on Romans 14 was intended to help us see that Jesus binds the ‘cause’ of fornication for putting away and remarrying while noting that different procedures will occur as that truth is applied.” Joe R. Price, [Joe Price – Don Martin Exchange (10-12-04)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
JoePriceDonMartinExchange.htm

“Ed Harrell says Rom. 14 allows us to tolerate ‘contradictory teachings & practices on important moral & doctrinal questions’ such as divorce & remarriage (Christianity Magazine, Nov. 1988, pp. 6-9; Apr. 1989, p. 6; May 1989, p. 6; May 1990, p. 6). But differences in Rom. l4 are in the realm where ‘all things are pure’ (v. 20). 2 Jn. 9-11 says we cannot compromise with departures from the doctrine of Christ. To compromise the truth at one point opens the door to digression & apostasy of every kind!” Ron Halbrook, (Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage Outline)

“I do take issue with your making what I understand as ‘application differences’ matters of division among brethren. Consistent with your conclusion that your understanding that those who disagree with you about who sues whom in a divorce for fornication and what role the civil decrees play in divorce are matters of ‘the faith,’ you are making these a test of fellowship and advocating that all those who disagree with you on these matters have ‘fallen from grace.’ Consistent with my conclusion, you are dividing the church over a matter of human judgment, just as those in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 did…It will continue to have this effect and, it is for this reason, I am calling on you to quit treating matters that belong in Romans 14 in the category of 2 John 9-11.” Mike Willis, (E-mail letter 8-10-01)

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
EmailExhchange-MikeWillis-JeffBelknap.htm

“One theory after another. Brethren, if we’re going to open the door to one of these because some beloved brother taught it, how are we gonna keep the others out? On what basis, on what principle can we keep any of them out?  So we just give up the purity of the church. Some have pled, ‘Well we can solve all of this with Romans 14, because Romans 14 says receive one another even where there were differences.’ Yes, it did say that. But did you know II John 9-11 said not to receive one another when there are differences?” Ron Halbrook, [Sermon—Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Carriage Drive church of Christ, Beckley, WV (5-30-91)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
RonHalbrookExcerptsfromCarriageDriveSermon.htm

“One may believe the innocent person must make some kind of formal statement to the church concerning the divorce, while another may not deem it essential that the innocent person be ‘active before the whole divorce process became history’ in order to put away the fornicator. These and other such matters are the areas where Romans 14 finds application today. These are the areas of ‘doubtful things’ that Romans 14 teaches us not to dispute over. That was the very purpose of my article, and the very point to which Brother Martin objects. I ask you to judge from the evidence where the departure from the pattern of sound words has occurred.” Joe R. Price, [Joe Price – Don Martin Exchange (10-12-04)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
JoePriceDonMartinExchange.htm

“Are we going to solve it with Romans 14? Do you see my point? If we’re going to solve it that way, you’re going to have to let all these other things in—and a thousand more and the church will be as someone said, ‘A veritable ark full of both clean and unclean beasts.’ Just people of everything. Now brethren, Romans 14 won’t solve the marriage question because Christ has a doctrine on this. And so, if we try to solve it with Romans 14 we just give up the purity of the church, throw the flood gates open—everything in the world will come in.” Ron Halbrook, [Sermon—Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Carriage Drive church of Christ, Beckley, WV (5-30-91)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
RonHalbrookExcerptsfromCarriageDriveSermon.htm

“Still, it must be acknowledged that brethren who are united on the aforementioned principle of truth (one man and one woman for life with one exception) conscientiously differ on some of the applications of that God-given pattern. Differences in application that do not violate the God-given pattern for marriage, divorce and remarriage should not be made tests of fellowship. That is the ‘forgotten side’ of Romans 14. Will we have the abundant ‘love’, ‘knowledge and all discernment’ necessary to ‘approve the things that are excellent’ and to remain ‘sincere and without offense till the day of Christ’ as we address this subject (Phil. 1:9-10)? Or, will we disrupt unity with the stumbling block of binding personal conscience upon others? Romans 14 still has application today.” Joe R. Price, [“The ‘Forgotten Side’ of Romans 14,” Bible Matters (10-10-04)]

http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
JoePriceDonMartinExchange.htm

“Mental Divorce” & “Pot Shots” At Brethren

“Let us encourage godly brethren who are willing to bear the blunt of criticism for exposing the false teachers among us and not take pot shots at them. Some brethren shoot their soldiers – those who sacrificially defend the truth against the onslaughts of error. Men who say they ‘agree with what you say’ proceed to take pot shots at the soldiers wielding the sword to defend the truth, but these same men coddle the traitors to truth. Yes, we wound and kill our heroes!” Mike Willis, [Guardian of Truth Magazine (Volume XXXVIII, Number 22), November 17, 1994]

“We had very little controversy over this specific issue before the computers came along and ‘loose cannons’ got possession of them and started ‘firing away’ at anything and everybody.” Weldon E. Warnock, [Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

****

“I concur in the warnings Weldon has sounded about factionalism. The tendency to splinter and then splinter the splinter, over every point of difference is much in evidence these days.” Connie W. Adams, [Reply to “Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage,” Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“Mental Divorce” & The Charge of “Causing Division”

“Now when we preach these things today, we’re accused of causing division. Dear friend, I want you to remember, departure from the authority of God’s word results in division. And the one who introduces error splits the log. Who causes division? The one that promotes a perverted gospel…Not those that opposed it! Those that opposed it were pleading for scriptural authority, scriptural unity. But those that introduce the perverted theories of men divide the church… These theories are not taught in God’s word. And listen friend, when we oppose the theories we’re not causing division. What’s causing division then? The theories of men!” Ron Halbrook, [Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Beckley, WV (5-30-91)]

“Some brethren need to quit painting everybody a heretic and a false teacher, not worthy of fellowship, who may have some disagreements along the lines which this article addresses. What we don’t need is another splinter group in the church, but it looks like it is coming or has already arrived. Oh, how I remember the way it used to be thirty to forty years ago when brethren could disagree on some things and not bludgeon one another to death.” Weldon E. Warnock, [Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage, Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005]

“In fact, brother Owen accused those of us who disagree with him of so dividing the church that we shouldn’t worry ‘about the money to build buildings. You won’t need any. You can meet by yourself in a phone booth’ (Tape, Nov. 12, 1996). Sadly, I have been forced to the conclusion that all our efforts to resolve our differences have been in vain.” Tom M. Roberts, Guardian of Truth Magazine (Volume XLI, Number 6) Bob Owen on Fellowship, Rubel Shelly and Bob Owen: A Deadly Parallel, March 20, 1997, pp. 166-172

“But neighbor, I want to tell you, when we start biting and devouring one another, then we’re going to destroy ourselves and churches will go down and dwindle in attendance. I’ve seen it in years past, I see it today. And you could get to place where you could meet in a one car garage with the car in it, because of preacher who is going to have his way, who’s a factionist, who imposes his own opinion.” Weldon E. Warnock, [8-22-04 Radio program (WJLS 99.5 FM, Beckley WV) sponsored by the Beech Creek church of Christ, Meador, WV.]

“Mental Divorce” & The Charge of “Extremism”

“But because of the ‘open fellowship’ policy of many, brethren who speak out for the truth and openly expose error are often an unwelcome minority within a minority. Because of the strong, uncompromising stand they take, they are regarded as ‘extremists’ and ‘troublemakers’ by nearly everyone.” Ron Halbrook, [Guardian of Truth Magazine (Volume XXXVII, Number 9), May 20, 1993]

“And wants to challenge me and tries to portray me as a false teacher, as a heretic. And he’s been doing this for the last three years or so, two or three years. And I deny his charge, his allegation. There’s not a word of truth in it, ladies and gentlemen. He’s got an extreme position.” Weldon E. Warnock, [3-27-04 Radio program (WJLS 99.5 FM, Beckley WV) sponsored by the Beech Creek church of Christ, Meador, WV.]

“Those who have used other forums to review the error have been stigmatized as ‘reckless,’ ‘irresponsible,’ ‘extremists,’ and meddlers who intend to ‘line up’ followers or create a party.” Ron Halbrook, [Guardian of Truth Magazine (Volume XXXVII, Number 9), May 20, 1993]

“And I said before, I think this is an extreme position that some hold.” Weldon E. Warnock, [4-18-04 Radio program (WJLS 99.5 FM, Beckley WV) sponsored by the Beech Creek church of Christ, Meador, WV.]

“For this, some are castigated as ‘extreme’ or as demanding ‘agreement with them’ to be regarded as faithful. Such unjust judgments will surely be judged (Matt. 7:1-2; Jas. 4:11).” Joe R. Price, [Biblical Principles of Unity and Fellowship (Part One of Four)]

http://www.watchmanmag.com/0107/010712.htm

“And so what was he to do? According to this brother here in Southern WV, he’s a preacher, ah, he would say: ‘Well, he’s just going to have to live a celibate life.’ Now that’s how extreme and far-fetched, ladies and gentlemen, this issue has become.” Weldon E. Warnock, [5-8-05 Radio program (WJLS 99.5 FM, Beckley WV) sponsored by the Beech Creek church of Christ, Meador, WV.]

“Mental Divorce” & The Charge of “Hobby Riding”

“Twenty years ago certain issues divided the church. Those sympathetic to the innovations referred to those opposed as ‘hobby riders,’ ‘antis,’ and ‘orphan-haters,’ to name but a few. None of these terms accurately describes the doctrine which caused these to be opposed to the innovation. Why did they use these terms? Simply because that to have attacked the doctrine itself was too formidable a task since it was, and is, the truth. So instead they attacked the personality of the adherents of the doctrine.” Ronald V. Lehde, [Truth Magazine, “What To Call It?” (Volume XVIII, Number 22) April 4, 1974]

“‘Heresies’ involves the crystallizing of tenets to give legitimacy to the division. That becomes ‘the horse they rode out on.’ We must not become one issue people. Hobby horses are dangerous critters to ride. It is hard to escape the conclusion that some have become hobby riders when we have websites devoted entirely to this one issue.” Connie W. Adams, [Reply to “Some Thoughts on Divorce and Remarriage,” Truth Magazine (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005] http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/
ConnieWAdams-ThenVSNow.htm

“Today, other boys feel as strongly about me, for I am an ‘Anti,’ concerning which there is nothing worse. ‘Antis’ are ‘hobby riders’ and ‘trouble makers.’ They split churches and do not believe in ‘cooperation.’ They don’t even think you can preach on the radio; they are opposed to radio preaching. They are also against recreation and ‘fellowship,’ not to mention ‘benevolence’ and ‘our’ Bible schools and orphan’s homes. They are a thoroughly bad lot. Chances are these boys will never listen to me. I’ve been libeled with a label.” Dick Dewhirst, Libel by Label, Truth Magazine (Volume VII, Number 9), June 1963

“It is not a time for overly zealous young ‘gun slingers’ to be maliciously ripping, biting, and gouging seasoned brethren who have spent a lifetime in the trenches holding the line…When there is a clear, easily identifiable swing away from the truth, by anyone, a line must be drawn in the sand! However, history should teach us that the chronic grousing of the Hobby Rider, out to make a name for himself, will not solve the problems or bring peace to Zion.” Raymond E. Harris, [Truth Magazine, (Volume XLVIII, Number 1, January 1, 2004, “The Hobby Riders – Continue to Ride!”]

See The Charge of “Hobby-Riding” by the Error-Siding!

“Today we got a letter. At one point it said, ‘We do not subscribe to any of the current hobbies such as opposition to orphan homes, and are anxious to cooperate with other congregations in good works.’ The writer labeled his opponents ‘hobbyists.’ He implied they opposed ‘cooperation.’ He labeled himself ‘for cooperation’ and ‘good works.’ In one word, he said his opponents were wrong, bigoted, and exceedingly active in publishing their views. Because they are his opposition and he believes in ‘cooperation’ and ‘good works,’ they must not. Has he been fair? Or has he libeled with the labels, ‘hobbies,’ ‘cooperation,’ and ‘good works?’ You be the judge…” Dick Dewhirst, Truth Magazine, Libel by Label (Volume VII, Number 9), June 1963

“When we are directed to web sights featuring countless articles on one subject, it is obvious we have another one issue, hobby rider out to rescue the brotherhood.” Raymond E. Harris, [Truth Magazine, (Volume XLVIII, Number 1, January 1, 2004, “The Hobby Riders – Continue to Ride!”]

****

“Now, someone sent me a print out of the website of the preacher in Southern WV, we’ll just call him JB. He mentions my name all the time on his website, and he’s riding his hobby horse again. Now, he’s been riding that horse for a long time. In fact, he could be properly called a nag.” Weldon E. Warnock, [7-4-04 Radio program (WJLS 99.5 FM, Beckley WV) sponsored by the Beech Creek church of Christ, Meador, WV.]

The Charge of Making “A Name For Himself”

“‘The boys’ will expect the right to go across the country and around the world teaching error but will criticize those who oppose them as self-seeking opportunists who are trying to make a name for themselves, who are jealous, who do not respect congregational autonomy and who lack brotherly love.” Tom M. Roberts, Attitudes Toward Gospel Preaching; Privacy: “Lets Keep This Among Us Boys!”

http://www.watchmanmag.com/0103/010301.htm

“In recent months, some brethren have pressed the ‘mental divorce’ issue to the point of being obsessed with the idea and becoming factional. Such brethren mark out a space for themselves on the spectrum of ‘mental divorce’ and then call on all brethren to withdraw from everyone to their left…” Mike Willis, [Truth Magazine, Adams – Warnock Exchange on Divorce (Volume XLIX, Number 9), May 5, 2005

****

“However, history should teach us that the chronic grousing of the Hobby Rider, out to make a name for himself, will not solve the problems or bring peace to Zion.” Raymond E. Harris, [Truth Magazine, (Volume XLVIII, Number 1, January 1, 2004, “The Hobby Riders – Continue to Ride!”]

See The Charge of “Hobby-Riding” by the Error-Siding!

Some Concluding Quotes

“Once the door is opened to let in one thing without Bible authority, where can one stop? When man assumes God will not object to something he wants to add, there is no stopping place. Anything that someone else might want can just as well be added…But these brethren, who became the Christian Church, could not stop with these two departures. The flood gate had been opened and none could turn back the tide. In fact, no religious organization, having started down the road of apostasy, has ever turned back to reform itself...Most of us can see the ridiculousness of such things as we have just mentioned. We ask, ‘Why would anyone go so far?’ The answer is simply that there is no logical stopping place for apostasy. Once the gate is opened to let in some things, there is then no logical reason why others of the like nature should not also be admitted.” Cecil Willis, The Gospel Guardian, “Where Does Apostasy Stop?” (Volume 9, Number 42), February 27, 1958

“Yet, as much as I loved McGarvey, candor requires me to say that he did not oppose the use of mechanical instruments in worship as effectively as he should have done. He was weak in the course that he pursued. And he did not oppose it consistently…And it has been well said – by Brother Sewell, I think – that his influence went with his fellowship, and not with his arguments.” Henry S. Ficklin, [The Gospel Guardian, McGarvey, And The Course of Digression… (Volume 10, Number 38) January 29, 1959] 

“But he should have realized that there is a natural kinship between digression and modernism. They both spring from the same evil root – unbelief. It would have been well if McGarvey, after seeing where this digression was leading to, had come out strongly against it.” Henry S. Ficklin [The Gospel Guardian, McGarvey, And The Course of Digression… (Volume 10, Number 38), January 29, 1959]

“Brother McGarvey said to me: ‘Brother Sewell, I want to say something to you, if you’ll accept it in the spirit in which I mean it.’ I told him I’d appreciate anything he had to say to me. He said about these words, ‘You are on the right road, and whatever you do, don’t ever let anybody persuade you that you can successfully combat error by fellowshipping it and going along with it. I have tried. I believed at the start that was the only way to do it. I’ve never held membership in a congregation that uses instrumental music. I have, however, accepted invitations to preach without distinction between churches that used it and churches that didn’t. I’ve gone along with their papers and magazines and things of that sort. During all these years I have taught the truth as the New Testament teaches it to every young preacher who has passed through the College of the Bible. Yet, I do not know of more than six of those men who are preaching the truth today.’ He said, ‘It won’t work.’” Jesse P. Sewell, (“Biographical Sketches of Restoration Preachers,” The Harding College Lectures, 1950, Searcy, Arkansas: Harding College Press, 1951, pp. 74-75.)

See: Making A Present Day Application of McGarvey’s Advice

“Brethren, any time a preacher has to be ‘smoked out’ on vital issues, he bears watching! Too much is at stake for matters of eternal consequence to be confused by the uncertain sounds of double-talk, issue-dodging, theological hedging – whether from the pulpit, personal conversation, or the hallowed precincts of an editorial chair.” Bobby Witterington, [Truth Magazine, “An Uncertain Sound” (Volume XVIII, Number 18), March 7, 1974

See: http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume18/TM018142.htm