[Biblemat] "MDR and the 1990 Guardian of Truth"

[Don Martin]

                "MDR and the 1990 Guardian of Truth"
                                By Don Martin


In 1990, the then called Guardian of Truth magazine believed in
dealing with issues among brethren (they have had a change of
policy).  In fact, the January 4 issue was dedicated to "Divorce and
Remarriage" issues.  Since I do have much interest in history, both
from a retrospective and also prospective slant (history often reveals
the future, as history tends to repeat itself), I spend some time looking
back at tangible events and actions, which I deem important and
precipitous.  I appreciated much about the way the January 4, 1990
issue of the Guardian of Truth (now Truth Magazine) addressed
"divorce and remarriage issues."  One preacher told me when I was a
young preacher, "Don, do not write articles because what you
write can come back to haunt you later."  I must humbly say that I do
not recall having written one thing that presently embarrasses me.
However, I can sure see how this has happened to many among us.
Allow me now to share some reflections about this particular issue of
Guardian of Truth with you, both good and bad.

Bill Cavender had the introduction article and made a number of good
points. Bill stated and proved from the scriptures that the only one that
has a right to divorce and marry another is the innocent mate who puts
away due to the fornication of the guilty mate and he so stated this
without any equivocation or mumbo jumbo.  I did not observe anywhere
in this special edition of the Guardian of Truth, efforts to explain how
any put away person could later put away and be able to marry another
or the concept of two putting away actions, the latter of which can be
scriptural.  I did not see any arguments attempting to justify divorce or
putting away (apoluo) being isolated and totally detached from any
civil protocol.  As I read the material, I did not even observe
intimation that one could privately and mentally or "in one's heart" put
away.  It is regrettable that even some of the men who prepared
material for this special edition now spend much of their time trying to
justify unscriptural divorces and "remarriages."

Bill mentioned one thing that has not transpired, at least not obviously
so: "A recent article says that by the turn of this century possibly
seventy-five percent of first marriages will end in divorce."  Based on
what was happening in 1990, this was a reasonable prediction.
However, we continue at the rate of about fifty percent of all first
marriages ending in divorce.  Are we better off today?   No.  Current
statistics do not figure in how many in America are now totally ignoring
marriage and are just shacking up.  In the 1990 edition of  G.O.T., I did
not read much about private or mental marriages, probably because it
was not as much of an issue, especially regarding the church.  However,
beginning in about 2000, I started having debates with preachers among
us who advocated that biblical marriage does not necessarily involve
appropriate civil protocol and that we should not talk negatively about
two people ("Christians") who decide to set up house keeping without a
marriage license (see addendum 1).  What a chaotic doctrine, as people
try to decide and determine whether or not they are really married or just
in a state of fornication.  However, since many have subsequent to 1990
now openly accepted various nuances of mental divorcement relative to
divorcement, it was predictable that many are now accepting various
nuances of "mental marriage."

In the basic vain being mentioned, Steve Wolfgang had the
overwhelming assignment of approaching "divorce and remarriage" from
the historic prospective.  Steve ably mentioned and documented how in
1910, for every 100 marriages there were 8. 8 divorces, 13. 4 in 1920
and 17. 5 in 1930. Indeed, "We have come along way, Baby."  We,
today, continue to witness the decay and deterioration of society and now
the Lord's church as the once American family is vanishing and churches
accept adulterous marriages and invent false doctrines to try to justify
adultery and fornication and extending fellowship to these people.  Steve
correctly noticed how that various publications reflect the fact that as
divorce increased, attention was placed on this growing problem.  "In the
early twentieth century, rising divorce rates were reflected," wrote Steven,
"in the increasing number of articles on divorce and remarriage by members
of churches of Christ.  The Gospel Advocate Index, for instance, lists 31
articles on divorce for the first quarter of the twentieth century; but the
next decade, from 1925 to 1935, exceeds that number considerably."
It is now sad that as "divorce and remarriage" is reaching pandemic levels,
that some present day publications such as the re-designed Truth
Magazine has adopted the policy of avoiding the issues and letting others
address such matters!  (See addendum 2.)

To Elmer Moore was given the important assignment of "definition of
terms." Elmer wrote regarding marriage:  "...this covenant is ratified when
whatever is legal in society has been met (Rom. 13: 1)."  (Guardian of
Truth, January 4, 1990, pg. 2.)  Regarding divorcement, Elmer stated, "A
divorce takes place when this marriage covenant has been dissolved.  In
our present society a divorce occurs when a legal decree has been issued.
This seems to accord with the Bible use of the term (Deut. 24: 1)."  Today,
seventeen years later, many do not know when a marriage begins and
what is the act of putting away or divorcement (see addendum 3).

Colly Caldwell had the task of dealing with I Corinthians chapter seven.
A growing number of preachers among us believe that Paul is teaching in I
Corinthians 7: 11 that divorce may (with divine approval) occur for reasons
other than fornication, just as long as there is no subsequent marriage,
etc.  In fact, the then editor of Guardian of Truth has now become
renowned for teaching more than one cause for acceptable divorce, even
such causes as divorcing for one's "emotional health."  Colly wrote in clear
and sound terms:

"Third, Paul repeated the 'command of 'the Lord' that 'a wife is not to
depart from her husband' (v. 10).  Some have found comfort in Paul's
next phrase, 'even if she does depart.'  The Christian, they say, may
divorce without sin for cause other than fornication if there is no
subsequent sexual activity....The statement 'but even if she does depart'
(v. 11) does not free one to disobey the command of verse ten..."
(Ibid., pg. 12).

Regarding the doctrine of multiple or more than one cause for
divorcement, Ron Halbrook was vocal back in 1990.  Under "Christ's
teaching," Ron unequivocally wrote:  "Man not permitted to put away
wife for conduct short of fornication" (Ibid., pg. 6).

Today, some of us are being labeled as divisive, trouble-makers because
we continue to boldly teach only one cause for acceptable divorcement,
the cause of fornication (Matt. 5: 32, I Cor. 7: 2f.).

As I reflect back on the 1990 special edition of the Guardian of Truth
magazine, I see many subsequent changes, both in attitude, doctrine, and
practice.  Where blatant false doctrine, as such, has not entered,
unity-in-diversity has influenced, in too many cases.  The present day
Truth Magazine, for instance, is a hodge podge of compromise and false
fellowship ideas.  Connie Adams, a man who still teaches the truth on such
subjects as "divorce and remarriage" is now Co-Editor, along with Mike
Willis. Some of the staff writers now openly defend Mike Willis' teaching
of more than one cause for divorcement or, at least, Mike's right to teach
such without serious objection, challenge, or refutation.  Again, it would
appear that to avoid all the embarrassment over inconsistency, doctrinal
change, moral indecision, and false ecumenical fellowship, Truth Magazine
has simply decided not to do any more of what they used to do, as seen
in the 1990 special edition, deal with issues.  Yet, many continue to
scratch their heads, others have their heads buried in the proverbial sand
of cowardice, and say, "What is all this fuss over, anyway?"  (See
addendum 4.)

Addendum 1:  In debating this issue, while conceding the possibility of two
people being biblically married in a state that provides common law
marriage circumstances, I have questioned why two Christians who simply
desire to move in together, even if they claim they are "married," would do
such a thing. I have also shown that as a rule, even in this circumstance,
many states that provide the common law marriage situation require certain
requirements, even time requirements.  Hence, two people may be viewed
as in fornication, looking at it from this slant, while they wait to fulfill
the state time requirement.

Addendum 2:  In volume 51 of Truth Magazine Editor Willis wrote:  "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."

Addendum 3:  I contend that there are certain components or elements,
if you please, that constitute both the marriage and, conversely,
divorcement act. They are:  Mental resolve, appropriate declaration of
intent, and compliance with applicable civil protocol (Mal. 2: 14, etc.,
Rom. 13: 1f.).  If we attempt to eliminate any of these matters, we
encounter problems.  I have incurred a number of preachers and also
people going through divorce to whom they have provided instruction,
who believe dating another is allowable, before the final civil resolve or
dissolution of the marriage.  Why not, if the marriage has been severed
at the point of mental resolve or simply moving out of the house?

Addendum 4:  While I commend the January 4, 1990 issue of Guardian
of Truth for dealing with the "divorce and remarriage" issue, I do not
sanction the organization and structure of the magazine or the Guardian of
Truth Foundation.  I believe both to be examples of privately supported
entities to preach the gospel, a work belonging to God's collectivity, the
local church, I Tim. 3: 15.  In 1990, the Guardian of Truth Foundation
constituting a privately supported "missionary society" was not as evident
to some as it is today.  When the Foundation started sponsoring or
offering their own gospel meetings or "lectureships," I think all doubt or
room for quibble was removed.

Cordially,
Don Martin  dmartinbtbq at comcast.net

Check out our Web sites:  http://www.bibletruths.net
Ask and receive a Bible answer  http://www.biblequestions.org
Simply click on the URL to visit these sites.  You may print out the
material for teaching purposes, see the copyright provision on the home
page of Bible Truths.