To come to the time of the question of a debate between brother Brown and myself; in the September 2008 Bulletin Briefs I published a short article (about 600 words) in which I commented on Paul’s words in I Corinthians 7:11 where he speaks of a woman who departs (choristhe) from her husband as being “unmarried,” yet being bound (Rom. 7:2-3) to him as her husband. As noted the article was brief and you may read it by going to (Google, waldronmissions.org, Bulletin Briefs, then click on 2008, September).
Subsequent to this article being published in Bulletin Briefs Brown published an article in CFTF consisting of eight columns by Howard Daniel Denham in which he wrote many words in opposition to what I had written.
Upon reading Denham’s article I sent him a copy of the packet spoken of above. Subsequent to his receiving that material he wrote to me (Nov. 25, 2008) proposing a debate between Brown and me. He also suggesting that I should submit propositions on the MDR question. Nothing was said in that letter about the debate being about “the role of civil government as it pertains to MDR” as Denham later claimed (See Item 1, above, Denham, July 2, 2009). On December 4, I wrote to him saying that I was leaving very soon to return to India and that I would get back to him in the New Year.
Thus on January 4, 2009 I wrote him and enclosed the two propositions; below. Copies were sent to brother Brown.
Proposition one: Resolved, The Bible teaches that unscriptural divorce between a husband and wife renders any succeeding marriage to another invalid and adulterous in the sight of God.
Affirm: Jim E. Waldron Deny:
Concerning this proposition Brown replied that he would not sign to deny it because he said that he agreed with its “parameters.” To this I replied that he should therefore sign to affirm it and we could then shake hands of this point. He did not sign it.
Proposition two: Resolved: The Bible teaches that a person arbitrarily put away (divorced) for an unscriptural reason over his or her objections, may, after the former spouse remarries or otherwise commits adultery, claim a scriptural divorce and marry another without sin.
Affirm: Deny: Jim E. Waldron
Brown refused to affirm this one, yet it is the very doctrine that Hightower affirmed in the September 2002 CFTF and he (Brown) published for the whole brotherhood to see; that is, their opposition to the truth as written by Mettenbrink and their willingness to accept “mental divorce” as being applicable to their own doctrine.
They circulated their material across the brotherhood, which as Jeremiah would say, is the imagination of their own heart (Jer. 9:14); and then when I began to oppose it they got all out of sorts and accused me causing division. Such things they say just hoping that those of us who oppose the philosophy of “mental divorce” will just roll over and play dead.
The two propositions above represent the very essence of the differences between those who hold to the very words of Christ (e.g., Matt. 5:32; 19:6-12; Mark 10:5-12; Luke 16:18; cf., I Cor. 7:11; Rom. 7:1-3) and those who believe that one may mentally claim divorce because of adultery which takes place expost-facto to the actual divorce.
Proposition one I have been affirming both publicly and privately in many countries and cultures across the world in debate, preaching and writing since 1977, yea many years before that date. Here I stand. As I noted Brown paid lip service Proposition one, but when I admonished him to sign it and let us shake hands of the point he did not.
Both Denham and Brown countered these propositions claiming that they both believed number one and that the second one did not represent their views; yet as noted when Brown was asked to put his signature where his words were, he didn’t. The second one sums up the very doctrine that Hightower affirmed and Brown approved and published in September 2002; and that for the whole brotherhood to read and accept.
Besides the rejection of these two very fundamental propositions they sent propositions that would amount to a striving about words to no profit. Their very long letter also proposed two four nights’ debates, one in Tennessee and in Texas. To which I replied that due to a very busy schedule continuously I did not deem it necessary to have two four nights debate and that I did not wish to become involved in any controversy that had taken place with a local church in Texas. After their submission of another very long letter in which they remonstrated about various things, I wrote in late February.