Hardshells & The Adultery Question II

This is the second posting in this series. The first posting can be read here. In that posting I sought first to give my own views on the matter by citing from Dr. Phil Johnson. I stated how PBs are divided on this issue and that my father was very strict on the matter, believing that a person who divorced for reasons other than fornication, and then remarried, was "living in adultery" and could not be a member of the church unless 1) that person put away his/her new wife/husband and went back to his/her first wife/husband, or 2) that person's first spouse died. Also, in that first posting I stated: "To my knowledge, I would guess that father's view represents the majority view, unless things have changed since I was with them in the 1970s and early 80s." Since that first article I have talked to my nephew, Elder John Davenport, who now pastors the church which father pastored. John told me that things had indeed changed with the PBs on this issue since the time I was with them and that he believed that most PBs now do not agree with father. Of course, all this is simply surmising because no one has polled the Hardshells on the matter.

In this posting I wish to cite from some Hardshells on this issue. I will first cite from Elder Claud McKee and his article "Church Discipline (Concerning Gross sins as opposed to trespasses)" (see here all emphasis mine).

"Many, but not all, the Primitive Baptists I was raised around believed that the sins of fornication and adultery were tantamount to selling a person's birthright; thus preventing them from joining or being restored to membership during their natural life. I had respect for those faithful Baptist I observed who held to that belief. I watched their stand in action and I am submissive to that practice, especially for unfaithfulness in marriage and the sin of adultery as described by the Lord in Matthew 19:9. Would it not be true that any child of God denied membership or excluded by the church is being denied their birthright to commune with the saints of God in a Church capacity? Whether that denial is for a life time depends on whether God will or has granted repentance. Members excluded for fornication or adultery among the Primitive Baptist has (sic) traditionally never been restored to membership even among those that didn't believe the birthright was forfeited by these two sins."

Notice how Elder McKee believes that the majority takes father's strict view on the subject, saying that "many" hold to it. I stated that father's view was that such a person had committed the "sin unto death" in relation to church membership, and here McKee says basically the same thing, that it was equivalent to persons "selling" their "birthright" as respects church membership. Elder McKee states that the strict view allows that one "living in adultery," that is, "living in an unlawful marriage," may become a member if God grants repentance. But, one does not know what McKee means by this. Father and others of the strict view believed that just confessing the sin, and feeling sorry for it, was not enough to grant membership. They believed that the person had to quit the unlawful marriage and resume marriage with the unlawfully divorced spouse. McKee does state that, from his observation and knowledge of the Hardshells, PBs have "traditionally NEVER restored to membership" such persons.

McKee continued:

"As previously mentioned most Liberal/Progressive movements are lax in church discipline. Their liberal views on adultery and fornication offend sister churches by harboring these sins in the church." 

If McKee is right, then the issue is still a divisive and hot topic among the Hardshells. Further, if the Liberals and Progressives are a minority, then we must say that the majority view on the "adultery question" is the strict view of McKee, father, and the conservatives.

McKee continued:

"This always leads to division and the Nashville peace meeting addressed this, problem in item 10 of their report. They said "Each and every local church has the right to dispose of her local affairs as she deems proper; that is, she has the right to discipline her own members; but no church has the right to harbor and protect heretics, liars, fornicators, and the like, to the hurt and annoyance of sister churches." A liberal argument I've heard is that the church is sovereign and no other church can tell them how to discipline their members. Another argument is that if a person commits fornication or adultery but is not NOW living in that condition they should be retained in the church. That reasoning could and has lead to situations where a member gave in to temptation and committed fornication and immediately felt remorse and petitioned the church for forgiveness. Under the liberal view, the person should be retained in the church. The scriptures give no such option; they clearly say that a brother or sister that is a fornicator should not be retained in church fellowship. The 'not now living in' argument is just a ploy that is used to distort established Primitive Baptist practice which is to exclude adulterers and fornicators and in most cases were not restored to membership."

Notice that "no church has the right to harbor and protect...fornicators...to the hurt and annoyance of sister churches." That was the view of father and was the view of the Nashville peace meeting. So, if most of the Hardshell churches today do not take the strict view on the "adultery question," then they have indeed changed.

Since McKee cited from the "National Peace Meeting," let me cite further from it. It can be found on the Internet under this title "A NATIONAL PEACE MEETING OF THE PRIMITIVE BAPTISTS HELD AT HARMONY CHURCH, DONALDSON, ARKANSAS JULY 13, 14, 15, 1953." (see here - all emphasis mine)

8. Neither husband or wife should put the other away and marry another, except for the cause of fornication. If husband and wife are unable to remain peaceably together, and decide to quietly separate from each other, they may do so for peace only, but not to marry again. In such case, if either should marry again, he or she becomes an adulterer and the other is thereby released. The discipline herein refers to members of the church, but we believe the moral law of God governing marriage and prohibiting adultery is binding upon the unregenerate as well as the regenerate. The church should not retain a person or persons living in adultery.

24. We further state and believe that fornicators and adulterers should not be retained in the church of Christ. All such offenders must be excluded and repent on the outside of the church -This is one of the chief glories of the gospel church over the law: that repentance is evidence of godly sorrow, not only by individuals but of churches and should be recognized by the church of God. No church should restore a member for any offense knowing that it will cause trouble, confusion or disturb sister churches.

Now, I do not know of any church that would consent to retaining in membership anyone who was in fact "living in adultery." The question is, however, just what precisely is "living in adultery"? Of course persons who are married and leave their spouses without just cause and then "shack up" with others are "living in adultery." But, is it also a case of "living in adultery" when a spouse enters into a second marriage without just cause? Also, no one denies that the unjust marrying again is sin, but the question is this - "does it continue to be a sin"? And, does the second marriage have to be dissolved in order for the sin to stop?

So, just what has been the historical and traditional view of the Hardshells on this question? Based upon the citations from the Nashville document the strict view of father was that view. Of course, I believe the strict view to be wrong, but it has clearly been the majority view among the PBs.

In "Adultery: An Act or a State?" (see here - emphasis mine) the author wrote these observations on the topic:

"A basic but often unidentified issue involved in discussions about what a person who has committed adultery should do in order to repent is this: was his sin of adultery only an act, or is it considered to be an ongoing state of sin? If it was an act of sin only, then the person may acknowledge his sin, be forgiven, and be careful not to repeat it again. This allows one to continue in the remarriage relationship. If, however, adultery is a continuous state of sin until the present partner is put away, complete repentance and full assurance of God's forgiveness do not exist until the adulterous union is discontinued."

"Was his sin of adultery only an act, or is it considered to be an ongoing state of sin?" Yes, that is the chief question! What is the correct answer to this all important question?

The writer continued:

"Both positions have very serious implications. If adultery is an act only, then to require separation is to needlessly break up homes and to lay a heavy and unnecessary burden on persons who desire to repent. It could also result in placing a stumbling block in the path of earnest seekers. If adultery is a state; however, then to assure persons of forgiveness while living with their partner (with the first spouse still living) is to give them a false hope of salvation and to sanction their going to hell since no adulterers will enter the kingdom of heaven (I Cor. 6:9). It also undermines the foundations of marriage and weakens the will to work through marriage difficulties."

Here the writer states the heart of the issue in debate very clearly. Those who see adultery in remarriage as an "act" see it as forgivable and therefore as no bar to church membership upon confession of wrong. Those however like McKee, father, and the endorsers of the Nashville document, who see such marriages as a "state," there is no forgiveness and such a state becomes a "sin unto death" and a "selling of one's birthright."

The article continued:

"How does God view adultery...as an act or a state? We believe the Bible clearly present adultery as an ongoing state of sin until the adulterous union is discontinued. Read and meditate on the following passages: Genesis 20 As long as Abimelech had another man's wife under his roof, he was a "dead man" until he released her to go back to her rightful husband, even though he had not yet touched her. This was true for even a pagan king. Ezra 9 & 10 Though a somewhat different situation, i.e. marrying foreign women, their unions were illicit and their sin was considered to be removed only when they separated themselves from their wives. (10:2-4, 10, 11) Jer. 7:8-11 (Note preceding context) The Israelites were committing adultery and then going to the Temple saying "We are safe'--safe to do all these detestable things..." God said they were trusting in deceptive, worthless words. Mal. 2:13-17 God hates divorce, the breaking faith with the wife of one's youth. Can He accept in our time that which He once hated? Is it only the act of breaking faith that He hates, or does He hate both the act and the ongoing state of breaking faith?"

This writer takes the view of father and many of the Hardshells and of many Campbellites. He believes that when one enters into a marriage without just cause (for fornication), then that person is "living in adultery" and cannot be forgiven until the sin is stopped, i.e., until the unlawful marriage is dissolved. The cases that are brought forth to prove the case, however, do not necessarily prove it. Let me explain.

If a person puts away his wife for an unlawful reason and marries another, that person continues to sin while in that marriage, or to "live in adultery," under one scenario only. It is when the first wife, who was unjustly divorced, remains committed to the marriage, forgiving her husband of his infidelity. This however is not the case generally. Most often the innocent wife considers the marriage lawfully ended and marries again herself. So, whether the man is living in adultery is conditioned upon the attitude and decision of the innocent spouse. If that innocent spouse continues to forgive her husband and continues to plead with him to return to her, then that man may be said to be "living in adultery." I believe the cases cited in the article are of this nature.

In the case of Abimelech, the unlawful wife never gave her consent to the marriage. She was forced into it and would leave it if she could. So, of course, in such a case, Abimelech was "living in adultery" with this "wife."

As far as the case of the Israelites marrying pagan wives, and then being told by God to divorce them, because (it is argued and supposed) that they were in unlawful marriages and therefore "living in adultery," the case is unique. The author of the article even admits this. It involves the special covenant that God had with Israel and with his command for the men not to marry heathen wives. Further, in the OT it was allowed that men could have more than one wife. Would the strict advocates of this issue not see having more than one wife as a case of "living in adultery"? Further, in the case cited from Ezra and Jeremiah, there is no mention of the Israeli men divorcing their Hebrew wives in order to marry the pagan women.

Next, the writer of the article says:

"Mt. 14:3,4 (NAS) John the Baptist rebuked Herod for taking his brother Philip's wife. He did not say: "It is not lawful for you to have taken her" but rather "It is not lawful for you to have her". Some say the sin was that of incest. Actually, Herod had committed two sins: adultery and incest. The only way to repent of both was to release the woman. John was rebuking a sinner, which shows that immorality is sin, not only for the saint, but also for the sinner. If adultery were merely an act, John died in vain. He should have been more discreet and sensitive, calling only for Herod to say he was sorry and giving permission to continue on with Herodias. Instead, Jesus commended John as being the greatest man born of women. Note also in Mk. 6:18 John's warning to Herod was repeated, continuous action: "For John had been saying..." This is why Herodias nursed a grudge against John. If he had said, "Just recognize you sinned, but stay with her and don't commit adultery again with another woman", Herodias wouldn't have had reason to be so upset with John."

Again, the reason why the case of Herod is a case of "living in adultery" may be due to 1) Philip still considered the woman taken by Herod to be his wife, and 2) the woman was forced (by threat or otherwise) against her will to become the slave wife of Herod. Further, the sin or illegality of the marriage may be because it was against the OT laws on incest. Further, the present tense "it is not lawful" may actually mean "it was not lawful." Things may be said in the present tense when reference is made to the past. There is what is called the "historical present." Further, John the Baptist would have recognized that Moses and the law allowed for divorce and remarriage.

The writer continues:

"The fruit of both approaches. Viewing adultery merely as an act fills churches with adulterous unions, undermines existing marriages, justifies having leaders that are divorced and remarried, and shuts the mouths of Christians and church leaders from speaking out against adultery in a society that is becoming more immoral and perverse. Today, many churches are very little different from the surrounding society in their morals."

That was the view of father and of the authors of the Nashville document on the issue. Though I disagree with father and the strict view, I nevertheless see their concern.

The writer continues:

"Viewing adultery as an ongoing state, however, promotes a life of holiness and purity in churches which take this Scriptural position, and provides solid foundations for marriages, a basis for facing difficulties in marriage, and courage and authority to confront sin both in the church and in the society. This approach best harmonizes Scripture passages on the topic and follows the practice of the Early Church in the first centuries."

That is my concern. It was the concern of Dr. Phil Johnson (who I cited in the first article). It is the concern of those who are in the Liberal or Progressive wing of the PBs. I just don't believe that in most cases that God wants people to break up existing marriages, even if entered into wrongly.

The writer wrote:

"Surely if the act of marrying is unauthorized, the marriage is also unauthorized. If the act of marrying is unauthorized, why would the consequences of that act, the marriage, be authorized? It wouldn’t."

A marriage may indeed have been adulterous when begun, but it does not necessarily continue to be adulterous as this writer affirms. The only way it continues to be so is if the spouse that was unlawfully divorced continues to seek a reconciliation. But, that case is not general.

The question that must be asked in all this is this: "Does the act of adultery in remarriage not automatically void the previous lawful marriage?" I believe it generally does. The only exception being the case where the innocent spouse forgives, remains unmarried, and continues to seek a reconciliation with the adulterous spouse.

In the next posting we will continue to look at what the Scriptures say on this topic.