Responses By Bob Owen, Ed Harrell, and Earl Kimbrough To My Lecture At Florida College

Donnie V. Rader

After my lecture was delivered at Florida College (February 8), there was an oral response by Bob Owen and two written responses by Ed Harrell and Earl Kimbrough were handed out. These responses were to my citing these brethren and referencing material they had produced on fellowship as it pertains to the divorce and remarriage issue.

About ten minutes before I was to speak, Colly Caldwell called me outside of Hutchinson Auditorium and told me, “This just came up.” He said that Bob Owen had asked for time to respond to my reference to him in the printed lecture and that he had decided to give him time to read a prepared response. I asked if he was going to grant the same to any other who might ask, such as Ed Harrell, etc. He said that Ed had asked to respond, but agreed that it was best for only one to be allowed to respond orally. When I asked if I would be given a chance to reply to Bob Owen, brother Caldwell said no.

Response to Bob Owen’s Statement
About My Lecture
At the conclusion of my lecture, Bob Owen was allowed to read a prepared statement in response to the printed version of the lecture in the Florida College Lecture book. In his response he charges me with “misrepresentations” and making “charges” that are “false and misleading” (1st paragraph).

1. Has brother Owen taught that the biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage lacks clarity? Brother Owen says,

On page 181 of the lecture book brother Rader attributes a view to me that I do not believe, have never believed, and certainly do not teach. . . . I do not believe or teach that the message of Matthew 19 is unclear.

The statement from page 181 was:
We are told that the Biblical teaching on this subject lacks clarity (see Harrell, Divorce and Fellowship; Owen, Fellowship; We Differ).

In the “Works Cited” (187-188) I listed two sermons by Bob Owen. One was “We Differ, Can We Fellowship” [www.cafes.net/drader/owen] that was preached in Concord, NC (Feb. 19, 1995). The other sermon was “Fellowship” [www.cafes.net/drader/owen] preached at Temple Terrace, Florida (Sept. 2, 1993). Please read those sermons for yourself.

I quote from the question and answer session following his sermon in Concord. All emphasis is mine

Tommy Poarch: Um, not to continue this forum, in the sense of a marriage, divorce and remarriage issue. . . . (Owen: Good.) But in what we learned today, about things being individual versus being with the group, is that, is there some cloudiness there, or some gray areas there which brethren who ever have problems with other brethren that it can’t make that distinction?

Bob Owen: I think there is. And some have read 1 Cor. 5 and have said, “Now look, here’s what the Bible says. Here’s a man in adultery, you’ve got to withdraw from him.” Look at the case. It was not just something where you and I might conclude that his marriage was not valid. It was a matter that here was a person who was openly living in an adulterous situation, incest. An open and shut case of adulterous behavior. It’d be like somebody who made no claim to be married; they’re just sleeping together. Now to come along and say, “Okay, now, here’s somebody who’s got a marriage problem and we have concluded that their marriage is not valid; therefore, we have concluded that they are guilty of fornication.” I can make that conclusion. Is that the same thing as the incestuous in 1 Cor. 5? I don’t believe it is. . . . The fellow who just goes off and sleeps with a woman who is not his wife, everybody knows that’s adultery. But the person in a questionable marriage, everybody doesn’t see that as an adulterous situation.

Notice the question he was asked and his answer. He makes a distinction between an “open and shut” case of fornication and adultery and a case where we conclude a marriage is wrong. What is he saying if it is not that what the Bible says on divorce and remarriage is lacking in clarity? If it is not lacking in clarity why say, “But the person in a questionable marriage, everybody doesn’t see that as an adulterous situation”?

The same point is made in his 1993 sermon. I quote from his sermon in Temple Terrace. Again, all emphasis is mine.

Brethren, there are some Bible cases that demand withdrawal of fellowship. And I think we can draw the principles of that from those Bible cases. In 1 Corinthians 5, the familiar case, a man had his father’s wife. Here was a case of incest. Don’t make too much of my statement right now, please: This was not a matter, that somebody thought maybe that marriage is not really right in the sight of God. This was an open and shut case of outright fornication, openly being practiced. It was so open, that Paul says in verse one, it is named that there is fornication among you and such that is not even practiced among the Gentiles. Even the world wouldn’t sanction what this fellow was doing. And the world’s not our standard, God is. But there are some things that are wrong in the sight of everybody. . . . Paul is talking about a situation of immorality that was a clear-cut case of ignoring the principles of God and living in such a way that even the world knew it was wrong. . . . in 2 Corinthians, he’s going to talk about some brethren in the church at Corinth who were in fornication. And Paul was saying, I hope they correct that before I get there and so I don’t have to come to them with a stick. Don’t interpret that to say you’re suppose to ignore fornication. That’s not what Paul was doing. But every case didn’t get the identical treatment. This one, he said, withdraw your fellowship from him. Here was an open case of immorality. And if a church harbored somebody doing that, it would destroy the influence of the church, even in the eyes of the world.

Brother Owen says, “He goes further and assigns a motive for my alleged teaching and it is false.” The statement to which he refers is,

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.

In the sermon at Temple Terrace, brother Owen said, “I’m talking tonight about fellowshipping. And I’m doing it in the context of a series of discussions on the marriage question.” In the lengthy quotes above, he contrasts the case in 1 Corinthians 5 as “open and shut” where we withdraw fellowship and cases where we conclude a marriage is wrong. What are we to conclude about cases where we conclude a marriage is wrong and some other brother teaches that the same marriage is okay?

Brother Owen then shifts the issue from fellowship to his view in divorce and remarriage. He said,

I believe and teach publicly what brother Rader preached today: the only basis for divorce and remarriage is fornication. Further, I believe God’s moral laws, including the divorce law, apply to all men.

No one (that I know of) has ever questioned his position on divorce and remarriage. It is what he has preached on fellowship that was called in question!

2. Does brother Owen teach that we can fellowship one who teaches error on divorce and remarriage? The only other reference I made in the printed lecture to brother Owen was the following,

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 (See: Harrell, Homer Hailey 6; Bounds; Owen, Dawson, Kimbrough).

Brother Owen’s reply said,

On page 186 brother Rader says that I fellowship those who believe and teach error on divorce and remarriage and implies that I would do so under any and all circumstances. This is misleading.

I never said that brother Owen would fellowship those who teach error under any and all circumstances. In the 1993 sermon brother Owen begins by giving the divorce and remarriage issue as the backdrop of his discussion. He said, “I’m talking tonight about fellowshipping. And I’m doing it in the context of a series of discussions on the marriage question.” Then, as the sermon progresses he makes such statements as,

The brethren who say that the principles of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, can only be applied in matters that are matters of indifference, have effectively eliminated those passages for any application within our brotherhood.

Have I misrepresented brother Owen? Here is what I said: “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.” In both the handout at the lectures and the Concord sermon, brother Owen makes reference to brother Hailey. Brother Owen would agree that those who follow the teaching of brother Hailey commit adultery. Brother Owen would not fellowship the couple in adultery. However, would brother Owen say we couldn’t fellowship brother Hailey (and those who teach the same)? He says in his statement that he has not drawn the same conclusion as some have about a particular high profile case (brother Hailey). The conclusion that some brethren have drawn is that this brother (brother Hailey), who taught what brother Owen and I agree is false doctrine on divorce and remarriage, should be excluded from the fellowship of the saints. This is the conclusion with which he disagrees. If he is saying that we could fellowship men like Hailey (even though his teaching leads people to commit adultery), that is the point I attributed to him! Wherein is the misrepresentation?

In the next to last paragraph of his handout he said that his lessons on fellowship deal with issues like the covering and the war question — not divorce and remarriage. Read those sermons for yourself and see. In the Temple Terrace sermon toward the beginning he said, “I’m talking tonight about fellowshipping. And I’m doing it in the context of a series of discussions on the marriage question.”

3. Who is a Pharisee? Brother Owen says Rader is “wrong in charging me with sin or claiming my doctrine is false because I do not accept his judgment. He makes his judgment the law of God. This is Phariseeism in full bloom.” That is a strong statement! If that is so, would brother Owen’s statement “I believe he is wrong in charging me with sin or claiming my doctrine is false. . . .” make him a Pharisee too? If my charging him with wrong makes me a Pharisee, looks to me like his saying I am wrong would make him one too. By the way, I wonder if I had called Bob Owen a Pharisee would brother Caldwell have allowed that without comment and let a member of the administration pass it out at the door?

Response to Ed Harrell’s Handout
About My Lecture
I find it interesting that brother Harrell responds to my printed lecture and in fact had asked the administration for time to give an oral response. The thing that makes this interesting is that he, as one of the editors of Christianity Magazine, practiced a closed door policy and would not allow any response to what he or others taught. He wants what he was not willing to give.

1. Did Ed Harrell say the Bible teaching on divorce and remarriage was lacking in clarity? In the lecture book I said,

We are told that the Biblical teaching on this subject lacks clarity (see Harrell, Divorce and Fellowship; Owen, Fellowship; We Differ).

Brother Harrell objects saying,

I will restate for the record that I do not believe Matt. 19:9 is ambiguous or unclear. . . .

The source I cited was a handout from the Florida College Forum between Mike Willis and Ed Harrell in 1991. In it brother Harrell said,

There is a third possibility, and I believe it is what all three of us practice. We acknowledge that there are honest disagreements of belief (faith) among brethren because all biblical teaching is not of equal clarity. . . .

I make the same judgment about Homer Hailey. I do not regard Homer Hailey as a false teacher, even though I believe him to be wrong in his interpretation of Matthew 19 (as he believes me to be wrong about Christians serving in the Military), because I am persuaded by his conduct and his arguments that he honestly believes that he is faithful to God’s teaching on the subject. Neither of us would fellowship a clear adulterer, but, at least for the time being we entrust the judgment of one another’s conscience on this question to God.

Each of these judgments is based upon an admission that we regard the subject as sufficiently lacking in clarity to accept a brother who disagrees with us. . . .

Let me be clear about clarity. My conclusion about the clarity of a passage involves both how clear it seems to me and also my evaluation of those who disagree with me. It is that distinction that separates a weak brother from a false teacher. A false teacher is either ignorant (II Pet. 3:5; Rom. 10:3), deluded (I Tim. 4:2; Rom. 1:21-23; II Thess. 2:11) or a deceiver (II Pet. 2:1-3) – he is not honestly mistaken about God’s clear instructions.

I have been dismayed to read articles on Homer Hailey that have been filled with fawning praise of his honesty and integrity while accusing him of violating clear biblical teaching. That is absurd. If honest and informed people disobey clear biblical instruction, God is the author of confusion. . . .

How can brother Harrell deny he ever said the biblical teaching on this subject lacks clarity?

2. When did I charge Ed Harrell with fellowshipping one living in an adulterous marriage? Brother Harrell said,

I have not and would not have fellowship in a local church with anyone whom I believe to be living in an adulterous relationship.

I never said he would. He is answering a charge I never made! Read my lecture in the book or on the web and see that what I said was,

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 (See: Harrell, Homer Hailey 6; Bounds; Owen, Dawson, Kimbrough).

I only pointed out that he would fellowship one who taught the person living in adultery that it is scriptural. The references I cite are the series of 17 articles in Christianity Magazine. The first was “Homer Hailey: False Teacher? (November 1988, 6) and the other sixteen articles were called “The Bounds of Christian Unity” (February 1989-May 1990). In the first article brother Harrell defends Homer Hailey and states that he could work and worship with him in spite of their differences. In the series brother Harrell puts matters of moral and doctrinal import and matters of faith in Romans 14 (May 1989; July 1989).
3. Denominationalizing and creedalizing. Brother Harrell charges that my lecture illustrates how some “trivialize the grand quest to be New Testament Christians by denominationalizing and creedalizing the plea.” What part of my lecture is denominationalizing and creedalizing? Is it the first section of the lecture about to whom Matthew 5 and 19 apply? Could it be the second section about whether we can understand God’s law on divorce and remarriage? Or, it is the third section about what God said about divorce being wrong and who could remarry? Is it the final section about what we do with the Lord’s teaching on divorce and remarriage?

Is my teaching on baptism denominationalizing and creedalizing? Is my teaching on instrumental music denominationalizing and creedalizing? Is my teaching on the Lord’s Supper denominationalizing and creedalizing? Is my teaching on the possiblity of apostasy denominationalizing and creedalizing? Is my teaching on the organization and work of the church denominationalizing and creedalizing?

If my teaching on divorce and remarriage and how fellowship relates to that means I am denominationalizing and creedalizing, why wouldn’t that also be true of brother Harrell when he teaches on the subject and refuses fellowship to those he believes are living in adultery? Why isn’t that denominationalizing and creedalizing?

4. Strong charges. Brother Harrell made some very strong charges about me and those who would stand with me. He charges me with distortion and reckless charges. He accuses me of denominationalizing and creedalizing. He calls my efforts McCarthyesque. He says that our efforts “destroy the right of the individual conscience and congregational autonomy.” What in my lecture does that?

Again, I wonder if I had made those charges about Ed Harrell would brother Caldwell have allowed that without comment and let a member of the administration pass it out at the door?

Response to Earl Kimbrough’s Handout
About My Lecture
I referred to brother Kimbrough’s booklet, How Shall We Treat Brethren With Whom We Disagree?, primarily because of Bob Owen’s recommendation of it in the two sermons that were cited in the lecture. Those sermons have been well circulated.

1. Did brother Hailey teach that it was scriptural to fellowship a man who lives in adultery? Brother Kimbrough says,

Furthermore, I do not believe that Brother Hailey ever taught that it is Scriptural to fellowship a man who lives in adultery. I have heard Brother Hailey preach on adultery and his denunciation of the sin is as plain as anyone can make it. If a person wants to take issue with the fallacy of his reasoning about the question, that is right, but to accuse him of teaching that we can fellowship one living in adultery is manifestly false. He did not believe it! He did not teach it! He abhorred adultery as much as Brother Rader does.

I never said that brother Hailey “taught that it is Scriptural to fellowship a man who lives in adultery.” Don’t forget that brother Kimbrough chides me (in his second paragraph) for providing neither quotation nor reference. No one ever questioned whether brother Homer Hailey abhorred adultery. The point has been that his teaching (and others who teach the same) says that aliens, who divorce for causes other than fornication, are scriptural in their remarriage. Thus, his doctrine told people who are living in adultery that it is scriptural.

Now, does brother Kimbrough believe that we can fellowship men who teach what brother Hailey taught in his book? If so, that’s the point I made in the paragraph which cited brother Kimbrough’s name.

2. Historical view or his own position? Brother Kimbrough’s reply says that his booklet was a “historical review.” No one who reads his booklet would deny that. However, he did state his own position. In his conclusion (11) he says, “But there are some things, in my opinion, that should be kept in mind.” He then lists ten points to his conclusion. Here are some of them:

2. No Christian, preacher, religious journal, or institution operated by Christians has a Scriptural right to state the “official” position of the churches of Christ on this or any subject. Nor do they have a Scriptural right to demand that any who hold variant views remain silent on the matter or be publicly branded as false teachers by them (11).

5. If the issue continues to be pushed on an “us” and “them” basis, and with the attitude that “we” alone have the right to speak and all of “them” must be silent or be branded as heretics, then a rupture of fellowship is inevitable. And the “fault lines” might run in as many directions as a seismographic map of California. In fact, a fissure may very well run beneath some of our own houses (11).

7. The raising of the issue to an “us” and “them” level necessarily results in a partisan alignment that tends to honor and uphold learned brethren on “our” side and to dishonor and discredit those on “their” side, when all of them have feet of clay (1 John 1:8) (12).

9. If brethren can be silenced from expressing the conclusions of their honest study on this matter [divorce and remarriage — DVR], unless they happen to agree with the “prevailing view,” or what some think the prevailing view should be, then brethren can be silenced on every question of Christian behavior over which brethren differ as a matter of faith. How does that differ from having a human creed, except that it is written in religious journals and proclaimed from pulpits by leading evangelists instead of being written in a creed book?

Are sound brethren not to “silence” those who promote error? The Bible teaches that those teaching error are to be silenced by those upholding truth (Tit. 1:10-11; 1 Pet. 2:15).

3. Charges. Consider the charges that brother Kimbrough levels at me and some others. (1) He refers to us as “the council of brotherhood correctness.” (2) He refers to us as “the Great Sanhedrin.” (3) He charges that some of us with trying to “direct the brotherhood without sufficient Scriptural tools to effect the direction.” (4) His last paragraph in essence calls me a liar.

Again, I wonder if I had made those kind of statements about Earl Kimbrough would brother Caldwell have allowed that without comment and announce that I had it to distribute?

Conclusion
I am convinced that good was done in calling attention to the men I referenced. The “aftermath” of my lecture just caused more people to look at the material I referenced and see what they have really said.

A more detailed response to each of these can be found at www.truthmagazine.com.

408 Dow Dr., Shelbyville, Tennessee 37160-2208 donnie@truthmagazine.com

Truth Magazine Vol. XLV: 11 p10 June 7, 2001