[Biblemat] "Let's All Agree To Disagree"

[Don Martin]

                        "Let's All Agree To Disagree"
                                  By Don Martin


Back in the seventies, some among us warned that with the introduction
and devoted promotion of the new Ecumenical Movement that claimed
to be the fulfillment of Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17: 21, many within
the Lord's church would be persuaded and unity-in-diversity would
become common, even the standard among God's people.  It has
happened!  As it was pointed out then, so we echo the same truth today
that the unity among God's people for which Jesus prayed in the shadow
of the cross was and is based on the mutual belief and acceptance of the
word (John 17: 14, 17-21, 2 John 9-11).

In my current polygamy/proper interpretive method debate, I was
reminded of the above.  In the below quotation, one of my disputants is
addressing another who posted regarding polygamy being a sin.  This man
who posted to the list publishing the debate did use the word "opinion" in
his post, in an apparent effort to be humble, and my disputant is addressing
this matter. Notice his thinking, rational, and modus operandi and the,
"Let's all agree to disagree" mentality:

"Considering the beginning of your post, after the definitions, it seems you
put all of this in the realm of opinion about polygamy and marriage. When
you put it that way, brother, you get me right in the same boat with you in
most effective ways we would approach the polygamous man today.

I would not tell him he is sinning by having several wives because I could
not... Some folks call a lot of things sin that are never addressed as sin,
making up all sorts of rules to go along with their preferences, so as to
bind their personal standards as law on others.... I can respect your
opinion without taking it as my own, as you can do with mine. Still we
are at peace and loving toward one another in the bonds of peace which
are found in Christ Jesus."

I have been debating the marriage, divorce, and marriage to another
matter almost assiduously for about ten years.  We are now seeing
another wave of graduated error emerging:  Polygamy tolerance among
those claiming to be preachers of the gospel.  Well, why not?  Some could
not tell when a person was married or divorced, due to their floating and
nebulous ideas about what constituted marriage and/or divorce.  Seven
years ago, I debated a respected preacher who maintained that two
Christians conjugally living together without what most think of as marriage
was not sin and that the elders where they were members had no right to
say anything to them.  He did not even contend for a common law marriage
circumstance.  "A marriage license has nothing whatsoever to do with
whether or not two people are married," said he.

I have debated a number who have no concept of when divorce occurs.
I recall one woman whom I was counseling who claimed her husband had
committed adultery, all of a sudden informed me that she had a date and
had begun dating.  I emailed her back and asked her how she had fulfilled
her state law requirements pertaining to the civil dissolution of her
marriage so fast (it had only been about a month).  Her reply was, "I
failed to tell you that I have also been talking to brethren....(all
prominent preachers in the church) and they told me, 'It is o.k. that
you go ahead and start dating, the civil divorcement has nothing to do
with biblical divorcement.  When you left his house, you were biblically
divorced at that point in time.'"  (See the addendum.)

One wave of divorce errors involved the multiple cause for divorce
doctrine. I only knew of a few who taught multiple causes for divorce
at the time and even one of them, Mike Willis, did not want his teaching
publicly addressed (he taught it publicly, though).  As a result of the
deterioration of marriage in our society and the problems now seen in
many local churches, more have come out of their closets, advocating
multiple causes for divorce, even financial problems and emotional
distress, which they interpret as "hindering one who is a Christian."
Some of them are heard saying, "We are not advocating marriage to
another, just different causes for divorce." These men know as well as
I do that just about all of these people divorcing for causes other than
fornication will marry another (Matt. 19: 9). What these men are not
now telling is that many of them, if not all, have beliefs that will even
allow these divorcing people to marry another later, while they have a
living mate.  Another preacher just recently announced his allegiance to
the multiple causes for divorce movement, Steven J. Wallace.

While some men do not teach multiple causes for divorce, they mix
and mingle with those who do.  Connie Adams is a good example of
this unity-in-diversity about which I am writing.  Connie has become
more and more involved in a working relationship with Mike Willis
(now famous for his multiple causes for divorce doctrine) and others
who also teach the same, all of them happily involved in the workings
of the Guardian of Truth Foundation.  I predicted some time ago that
the Guardian of Truth Foundation would become a primary promoter
of the multiple causes for divorce doctrine and such has happened.
Such foundations in which Christians come together to corporately
preach the gospel are believed "untouchable" and can basically teach
and do what they desire because, "We are not a local church."  Hence,
such entities have historically been a major source of the injection of
false doctrine into the Lord's church.

"Let's all agree to disagree," this is what my disputant in the polygamy
debate says.  I should not have any problems with him because he says
that I must accept John and his five wives with whom John is conjugally
living and because he accepts them (as long as civil law does not
condemn them). He has no serious problem with John, his problem is
with me because I maintain that polygamy is a sin and I cannot fellowship
one in polygamy. One of the first to openly voice strong opposition to
my teaching on multiple causes for divorce was Joe Price.  He was not
openly advocating what his buddy Mike Willis was teaching, but, "Don,
you are causing trouble by teaching against multiple causes for divorce
and you must stop this," this was in the main his and other's thinking
(see my exchange with Joe Price in www.bibletruths.net, go to the
Polemic Exchange section.  Joe later agreed with the multiple cause
doctrine).

No, we do not need to learn how to, "Let's all agree to disagree" not
in matters of doctrine. What we need to learn is, "Let's all agree to
agree on the teaching of God's word and to live and teach it without
compromise!"  There is no end to the, "Let's agree to disagree," it
soon allows for all sorts of error on marriage and divorce, as seen,
even the allowance of polygamy and the existence of church like
organizations doing the work God has assigned to his church through
their own oversight and with their own treasury (I Tim. 3: 15).

Addendum:   While I do not teach that in the case of marriage or the
converse, divorce, applicable civil protocol is within and of itself
marriage or divorce, respectively, I certainly teach that civil protocol
is part of each. Society in general has had such civil procedure in place,
one reason to establish intent, fact, and record.  Without such, there is
utter chaos.  To charge as some have,"You teach the race to the court
house doctrine" is totally false, prejudicial, and deflective.

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.