Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage
MDR Questions between D. Brown, H.D., Denham & J. Waldron
Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage
Shillong, Meghalaya, N. E. India
July 2, 2009
To Whom It May Concern:
My love and regards to all who love our Lord Jesus in truth, for it is
written, “love the brotherhood” (I Peter 2:17).
Re: The question of a debate on the subjects of marriage, divorce and
remarriage (MDR), between David Brown and Jim Waldron.
On July 2, 2009 the following emails from brother Howard Daniel Denham were
forwarded to me by two other brothers:
Original Message-----
From: Howard Daniel Denham
To: CFTF@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Wed, Jul 1, 2009 4:57 pm
Subject: [CFTF] Debate on MDR
Item 1, ”As some of you know, we have been in negotiations with Jim Waldron in trying to arrange public debates in both TN and TX concerning the role of civil government as pertains to MDR. Brother Waldron initially accepted our challenge. He demanded in correspondence that we deny a proposition that we believe and affirm a proposition that we don't believe, which propositions also do not deal with the issue at hand. When we submitted counter propositions that actually deal with said issue, he cut off the negotiations. Our last letter to him was returned unopened and stamped "Refused." So much for his supposed willingness to discuss the matter fairly and forthrightly! Daniel Denham.”
Item 2, From Daniel Denham to one of his respondents, “Jim Waldron
continues to attack his opponents and yet will not face them in a public
debate on propositions that clearly address the matters concerning his
attacks. He has decided to hide in the hillocks and mountains of TN rather
than correct his error. He has divided churches over his error and has much
else to account for regarding it. It seems, as you have noted, that many
have lost "the courage of their convictions" in our day. Sad, sad times
indeed! Daniel Denham.” Forwarded to Waldron on July 2, 2009 at 8:42 a.m.
Item 3, Daniel Denham, “What he tried to get us to do was agree to deny the
text of Luke 16:18 and to affirm that we believe in his depiction of view he
opposes as "mental divorce." When we offered propositions that actually
addressed the points of dispute over the application of Matthew 19:9's
exceptive clause, he bolted the exchange. He either has no real grasp of the
issue as he has claimed he has or else he realized that he was in over his
head. BTW the entire exchange is to be published in Contending For The Faith
for all to see for themselves. Daniel Denham." Forwarded to Waldron on July
2, 2009 at 8:38 a.m.
Waldron’s Response: Brethren I am not hiding in the hillocks and
mountains of Tennessee (Item 2 above), although they are greatly to be
admired; I am in the northeast part of India in the foothills of the mighty
Himalayas teaching Romans to a class of thirteen student preachers.
Now to the question of a debate:
In September 2002, brother David Brown, editor of Contending For The Faith
(CFTF) published an article by brother Terry Hightower that was a critique
of an article written by brother Jim Mettenbrink in which the latter
affirmed the words of our Lord on the question of MDR as found in Matthew 5
and 19. Hightower in his article rejected the things Mettenbrink
had written and put forth his own views on MDR. In presenting his
views he stated that some viewed his teaching as being “mental divorce,”
then proceeded to accept that conclusion.
As most are aware, if one buys a house the “underwriters” of a loan must sign off on such before it will be granted. The editor of CFTF not only signed off on Hightower’s rejection of Mettenbrink’s teaching as being false, but also on Hightower’s doctrine and his acceptance of the term “mental divorce” as it applied to his teaching.
Due to my being abroad much of the time between September 2002 and the
Spring of 2003 I did not see a copy of the September 2002 CFTF until May
2003. After reading Hightower’s article I wrote to him personally
showing how his reasoning was inconsistent with the truth. We exchanged
letters on the question. You may have a copy of those letters,
Mettenbrink’s article and other pertinent materials without charge. Request
the “Packet on Mental Divorce” from, Waldron Mission fund, P.O. Box 123,
Dunlap, TN 37327. At the same time you may, if you desire, request a copy
of the Hicks – Waldron Debate on MDR, also without charge.
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:
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.
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
Crossville, TN 38557
February 23, 2009
Brother David Brown
25403 Lancewood Drive
Spring, TX 77373
Dear Brother Brown,
It is my hope and prayer that you and your loved one are well.
1. Concerning the location: You wrote, “Since you
do not desire the debate to be in Crossville, we are agreeable to one debate
in Knoxville, TN, but we also propose a second debate on the same
propositions, spaced by a couple of months or so a part, somewhere in the
Austin, TX area.”
Response: Please do not let my suggested to use Knoxville as a reason to
remove the debate from your own locale to Austin. Although Crossville
is some 80 miles from the nearest airport – Knoxville, and I live only about
forty miles from the airport please be assured that we are quite willing for
the debate on our end to be in Crossville. Your controversy with the
brethren at the school in Austin has not taken place in a corner and I will
not agree to be a part of a debate that brings you to their door step when
it needs to take place in Spring where you are. You brethren proposed
the debate and if you desire to have it let it be in Spring and Crossville.
2. Concerning the question of two debates:
Response: You spoke of restraints on your time and I had spoken of such
about my own time, thus I see no need to have two debates as the one can be
video taped and sent out to those who wish to see it. As I indicated I
am willing to produce such at cost or free, simply for postage. We can
have two evenings here and two there. As to the date, perhaps next
year (2010) February 15-16, here and 22-23 there or vise versa.
3. Concerning the propositions: You wrote. “As to the propositions, it
is clear that you do not seem to understand the real difference between our
respective positions, despite your agitation of the issue of MDR.”
Response: The truth of the matter is that I do “understand the real
difference between our respective positions.” That I first learned when I
read the article you published by brother Terry Hightower (Contending for
the Faith, September 2002). In fact I had never heard the term “mental
divorce” until he named it in reference to the doctrine you and he hold.
As I informed him I did not see his article until the second week of May
2003 due to my scheduled trips abroad. Thus my entering into the
conflict did not take place until you and he opened the ball in the autumn
of 2002.
Not only so, but as I indicated I learned the term “mental divorce” in May 2003, from brother Terry Hightower in your paper (CFTF- September 2002), which term he accepted as applying to the doctrine he was upholding in that article. And which doctrine you approved as editor and sent out to the brotherhood. But now both of you run from it like it was a rabid squirrel and have no intentions of debating any proposition that addresses itself to your mental divorce doctrine.
I have no interest in further correspondence with either of you.
Jim E. Waldron
My reasons for cutting off the negotiations about the debate were two: 1) The seven pages of harangue that greeted me when I returned from India in May after I had specifically stated that I would no longer respond to such; and that we should get on with the arrangements for the debate themselves. To me the continuation of such maneuvering by letter was a tactical effort on their part to get me to put something in writing which they could use to besmirch the truth. 2) The fact that Brown was totally in denial concerning the doctrine that he promoted in this brotherhood in September 2002 and it being obvious that he had no intentions of defending such in debate.
Finally, it would seem that there is to be a write up in Contending For
The Faith (Item 3 above) and that my name is to be featured. In light
of what Paul wrote to Timothy (II Tim. 3:12) and what he wrote to the saints
in Thessalonica (I Thess. 3:3-4) being written up in CFTF will be like
throwing bre’ Rabbit in the briar patch.
In Christian love,
Jim E. Waldron
