We will deal with three questions this month, all of which involve divorce and remarriage issues. If the mail and phone calls I receive are any indication, there is a dramatic increase in such problems among our brethren. My heart goes out to all those caught up in such situations, often very difficult for all involved. Also to all parents whose children have been so unfortunate as to become victims of broken homes and marriages. All of this, however, does not change what the Law of God is regarding these matters, and we must never allow our feelings to color our response or belief in dealing with the issues.

Question: If two Christians marry and later divorce for a reason other than given in Mt 19:9, and one of them decides they didn't know what they were doing when they were baptized, and is rebaptized, would the party then be free to re-marry since the first marriage was contracted before baptism? (Ca.)

Answer: Absolutely not. There are a number of things that puzzle me about this situation. First, why did the party wait to question his/her baptism until after the divorce occurred? Secondly, had there been no divorce would the baptism have ever been questioned? One is made to wonder, although this may not be the case at all, if the party involved is merely seeking some way to justify an unscriptural divorce and pave the way for another marriage. In the opinion of this writer it will not work.

The scriptures teach that this individual is bound to their marriage partner as long as they both shall live, with but one exception--fornication. Mt 19:3-9; Rom. 7.2-3; I Cor 7:10-11. Any attempt to circumvent the law of God in this matter is not only wrong, but reveals a spirit that is dangerous and destructive. The law of God that governed this marriage when it was contracted, is the same law that governs its duration and any grounds for its dissolution, from this conclusion there is no escape.

Question: If there is a married couple and one leaves the church and asks for a divorce, should the innocent party use Mt 18:15-17? If this is not done, what should be done? (WV.)

Answer: I am assuming that neither party to this marriage has committed adultery. This being the case, I Cor 7:10-11 demands that the departing spouse either remain unmarried or be reconciled. If this happens the marriage can be saved. Since, according to the querist, the departing spouse has also left the church, it is unlikely that what Paul had to say will have much influence on this person. It would be appropriate for the innocent or unwilling partner in this situation to go to the other and try and get them to repent of leaving the church and seeking a divorce for unscriptural reasons. I certainly see nothing wrong with following the implications of Mt 18:15-17 in order to bring about the repentance and restoration of the individual. The actions and behavior of the person would ultimately determine whether he/she should become the subject of church discipline and formal withdrawal take place. What, then should the innocent party do? Three things basically: 1. refuse to agree to an unscriptural divorce, 2. continue to live a Christian life and try and influence the departing spouse to return to the church and the marriage, and 3. exercise the God given right of divorcing the person if he/she commits adultery and refuses to repent.

Question: If a congregation scripturally withdraws fellowship from a couple for adultery and informs other neighboring congregations of all facts involved, what should the attitude of these congregations be? (Ar.)

Answer: If all facts are correct and the withdrawal process scriptural, the actions of the withdrawing church should be honored by all churches. A failure to do so, not only results in undermining the discipline process, but causes the violating church to condone and encourage immorality. Paul's teaching in I Cor.5 clearly shows that all members of the congregation are to withhold all forms of fellowship from the immoral individual so that he will repent of his sin. When some members of the church refuse, thereby lending encouragement to the individual, the power of the discipline process is thwarted, and the possibility of saving the man greatly diminished. Paul on several occasions commanded that certain false teachers be rejected. Brethren who failed to heed his warning not only endangered the church, but the false teacher as well.

I realize that brethren cannot bodily remove people from the assembly. However they can inform the guilty ones that they will honor the withdrawal that another church has initiated. To call on such a brother to participate in a church service flies in the face of everything the bible teaches on the subject, disregards the autonomy of the withdrawing church, encourages sin, and contributes to the eternal destruction of the people involved.