Private Emails Between David Watts and
Steven J. Wallace

 

From: David Watts Jr. [mailto:davidwattsjr@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 12:34 PM
To: Steven J. Wallace
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: As per Brian Adams Request]

Brother Wallace,

I hope your wife and daughter will get over the flu soon.... You have three kids? Me too. Mine are 5, 7, and 9. Youngest is a boy, older ones are girls.

Our large email threads almost grow exponentially. We may be responsible for the demise of the internet.

Perhaps we could take just one little portion at a time. Since you feel I have misrepresented you, I want to get this resolved first. Let me simply ask about this.

You say:

"I have argued that when one 'FORNICATES' PRIOR to the divorce that he cannot refuse the 'NON-FORNICATOR'S' Jesus-given right to put away the fornication by his quickness to initiate the divorce!"


Please help me understand what you are teaching via the following scenario:

·         Jack is lawfully married to Jill.

·         Jack cheats on Jill.

·         Jill discovers it.

·         Jack decides he will divorce her.

·         Jack hires an attorney and begins the divorce process.


You take it the rest of the way. According to the Scriptures, what must Jill do in order to be able to lawfully marry another? Under what circumstances would Jill not be able to marry another lawfully?

Are you saying that she can take activity after the divorce is over, such that will allow her to lawfully marry another? What is that activity?


David.

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________________

Wallace’s 1st Response

 

Steven J. Wallace wrote:

David: I am in a similar situation. I have three kids. The youngest is a girl and the two oldest are sons. 2, 4, 6 are their ages.

 

In the scenario that you described below, I would say that the woman needs to be given time to resolve what she wants to do regarding her adulterous spouse. I know of a man (a preacher) who left his wife, was living with another person for months. She waited, pled with him and finally after months he came to his senses and came back. Now, she could have lawfully divorced him right away. Likewise, he could have loved this other woman so much that he initiated the divorce with papers and such, but the woman did the right thing, in my judgment by waiting, praying, and working for the betterment of her husband. Who am I to say that if he initiated the divorce that it somehow negates her right of putting him away because she needed time to process the events. He was fornicating against her before, during and after the divorce which he initiate (if he did initiate it) and therefore she can put him away lawfully for fornication. However, I do not believe that two people who get a divorce (no fornication prior to, no fornication as the cause) that one can leave and remarry and that gives the other the right to put the person away for adultery.

 

I think, when we begin binding that she "MUST" do this or "MUST" do that over these areas of judgment when her husband was unfaithful prior to any divorce, that we are very much acting like the Pharisees and will ultimately set aside the word of God, by way of setting aside the right that Jesus would have given Jill in that circumstance. Far be it from me to take away that right. I will not consider her in sin; I will extend a sympathizing hand of fellowship.

 

You asked under what circumstances would she not be able to marry another?  Well, I supposed if she forgave and reconciled (those two terms are not equal) that she would not be able to marry another. I would argue that if she reconciled and kept drudging this up, and years later put him away that she would be in error. Once you forgive and reconcile, it seems that you cannot then later state, "Well, now that I am sick of you and I will put you away for committing adultery on me 10 years ago."  However, until she forgives and reconciles (and you and I cannot determine the amount of time that will take) she does have that right (regardless of his ungodly actions.)

 

I have laid down information on this on "Covenant Breaking: Divorce and Remarriage" at www.sunnysidechurchofchrist.com, simply go to articles on the navigational bar and then scroll down until you find it.

 

I completely agree with what you said here <<Let's also make sure something is very clear. This matter is not about a "race to the courthouse." Suppose a man cheats on his wife while they are married. She finds out. He decides to divorce her. He hires a lawyer. It matters not that he hires an attorney first. >>

 

Yet when you say, <<She is always free to participate in the divorce process and let it be known to all that she is putting him away for adultery. But, if she does nothing and does not participate in the divorce process for the purpose of putting him away - and allows herself to be put away, then she is bound by Jesus' law not to remarry.>>

Many people will have different judgments about this. Some could content since she did not instigate the divorce then it matters not. Others would say, "How much participation doe it require on her part? Is just having the attorney telling the judge that he fornicated enough? Does she need to have it written on paper? Does she need to stand up before the whole courtroom and state it herself? I don't think you can bind any one of these. What if she still doesn't want to divorce him and doesn't want him to divorce her? What if she is graciously waiting to see if he will turn around and come to his senses? I believe we need to leave these matters to her and God. If that makes me a false teacher that is unworthy of fellowship, then I guess we will all answer to God on judgment about that.

 

I hope this clarifies the issue. I appreciate your independent thinking and wanting further clarification.

 

Brotherly,

Steven

 _______________________________________________________________

 Watts’ Response

From: David Watts Jr. [mailto:davidwattsjr@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:56 PM
To: Steven J. Wallace
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: As per Brian Adams Request]

Brother Wallace,

I should have explained earlier - there are many things I would like to discuss from your most recent response. But since you have raised the possibility that I have misrepresented your position - I feel that the most important thing is for me to get this matter resolved first. The reason I asked about this scenario - is that if I've misunderstood you - (certainly possible), I want to understand you correctly. I want to get it right.

I need to follow up briefly.

·         f Jill allows herself to be put away by this man, can she lawfully marry another?

·         If so, what must she do in order to lawfully marry another?


I shouldn't ask a question without answering it as well.

·         If Jill does nothing, and allows herself to be put away - then she is the put away woman of Mt. 19:9, Mt. 5:32 and Lk 16:18.

·         And as such, Jesus forbids her from marrying another. Such a matter is not opinion or scruples.


From reading your material throughout this discussion - and your last paragraph, I came to the distinct conclusion that you would counsel her that she might have sort of right to "divorce" him later - after he had divorced her. Is this the case, or have I misunderstood? These are not matters of judgment. When a woman works to put a man away - she has done what Jesus described. If however, she does nothing - she becomes the put away and cannot remarry.

If I can get a clear understanding in my head on this - then I would like to send a note of clarification to the list, with your approval of the wording of such a note.

In Christ,

David.

 

________________________________________________________________

Wallace’s 2nd Response

Hello Brother Watts. The way you wrote to the list made it look like I agree with the position that two people get divorced and then later when one remarries, the other can put that person away for adultery. Is that not what you thought and taught?  It certainly seemed like if from reading it closely. That is the impression it left on me. YET I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT NOR TEACH THAT DOCTRINE.

 

If I were you, I would simply admit that I goofed as I did when I spoke in a way that was out of line. It is a test of character.

 

<<f Jill allows herself to be put away by this man, can she lawfully marry another? >>

 

Have you ever heard of such an actual event? I wonder how many divorces people on the list have heard where the "JILL" does nothing at all? I cannot imagine someone being so out of it that she just sits back passively while her world is turned upside down.

 

Are you going to consider me a "false teacher" and are we going to have "churches of Christ where non-fornicators allowing themselves to be put away by fornicators" and "churches of Christ who don't allow non-fornicators to allow fornicators to put them away?" This is continuing to cement in my mind of how contentious this discussion and list has become. "he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and ARGUMENTS OVER WORDS, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions,  useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth. . ." (1 Tim. 6:3, 4).

 

Are you not even a little concerned whether you can be in the above passage? I wonder if anyone ever takes these words to heart anymore. They weigh on me.

 

·         She must put away the guilty fornicator ("how" or "what method" she does and "when" to a large extent, is left up to her)

·         I will not create and dictate a protocol by which all non-fornicators must submit to in a divorce? To me it would be bordering on the code that Pharisees had for washing of hands and pitchers. I will not ask and dig into everyone who has ever been divorced and remarried to make sure that they followed a certain protocol. Do you? If so, what is it?

I mean if these actions that she does or does not are so important to you, then I guess your practice has been, however long you have been preaching, to inquire into every divorced and remarried couple exactly the particulars as to what they did when they put their spouse away. I inquire as to the "cause" of divorce but not the "method." I reckon we are spawning a division in the church over "methods" rather than "causes."  I will not stand with your or anyone else on that. If I stand alone, I will gladly stand with what I read in the scriptures and not what others think needs to be done. Would you then reach the conclusion that because there was a breach on some technicality/action that they are not lawfully divorced and therefore are living in adultery?

I am curious as to the list of things that you require. I would also like a scriptural citation after each one please. I want things that she MUST not MAY do in order to have a lawful divorce? Have these things been a regular part of your preaching-diet to the churches where you work? Am I correct in supposing that these particulars you have in mind are things that you publicly preached to the churches as doctrine and whoever doesn't submit is going to hell? 

 

I am trying to be patient, brother Watts, but I don't know how to make myself any clearer. I am at a loss for words.

 

I do not believe, in the case of a guilty fornicator, that his spearheading the divorce destroys the right of the non-fornicator to put him away--even if he can slip a divorce in by stealth in hyper speed! Why do I have to keep saying this so much? It is really not that hard to understand unless you are trying to simply smooth over your blunder to the list and still make me look like the big black knight of error.

 

I am sorry if this sounds somewhat sharp, but I have already stated my beliefs clearly and you continue to ask. It may be me, perhaps I just don't know how to make myself clear to you. I trust you that you are not seeking for a "word" to hinge on to smack me around and have contentious warfare over. I reckon, time will tell.

 

Steven

_____________________________________________________

Watts’ Response

From: David Watts Jr. [mailto:davidwattsjr@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:37 AM
To: Steven J. Wallace
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: As per Brian Adams Request]

Brother Wallace,

Jesus' command that a put away woman may not remarry is clear. This is not a striving about words. If it is, then we're striving about words when we argue that baptism is FOR the remission of sins. In fact, all the arguments that baptism is FOR the remission of sins, and not because of the remission of sins - are more technical and more demanding that what we're discussing here.

I'll send a note to the group. I want you to have an opportunity to be comfortable with what I'll send. If we can't agree - you'll have a chance to respond of course. The apology/clarification is in purple below. The text in black is some continued teaching on my part. I know you'll disagree with the teaching. My concern is that you are comfortable with the facts as I have stated them in my apology/clarification.

It is obvious that you would teach a wife that was put away by a cheating husband, that she can carry out some sort of "divorce" after the divorce - and thus remarry. Its not striving about words to simply note that you permit what Jesus condemns.

My error was in explaining the circumstances in which you permit this. I thought you permitted this "mental divorce" in the circumstance where the divorce takes place, and one of the spouses commits adultery. I take you at your word - that you do not preach this. But you do apparently allow for this kind of "mental divorce" in a different circumstance, when a spouse was put away by a person who had committed adultery.

I say "apparently" because you dodged the question and you did not answer it. I'll try again.

A husband cheats. Wife discovers it. He decides to divorce her. He starts the divorce process. She does not engage herself in the divorce process for the purpose of putting him away for fornication. She allows herself to be put away. Does the Scripture allow her to lawfully marry another? If so, what must she do?

In the interim, here is the statement I propose to send to the list:

Dear Brethren,

Brother Wallace has contended that I misrepresented him. We took our conversation offline - so that I may determine whether or not I did so.

I have concluded that I did inadvertenly misrepresent him. I made a mistake in the scenario in which brother Wallace allows for a put away person to "divorce" and lawfully marry another. I argued that he allowed it in a case where a man divorces his wife, she waits for him to marry again, then she can "divorce" him and marry lawfully. He states that he does not teach this. He is an honest man. I believe him. I apologize to him and the list for my error.

Brother Wallace does allow a put away person to "divorce" and lawfully marry another in a different scenario. That scenario is this: a man cheats on his wife and then determines to divorce his wife. If she does nothing and allows herself to be put away, she becomes a put away wife. Brother Wallace believes she can somehow "divorce" him after the divorce and lawfully marry again.

As this list knows, I find this teaching utterly without Scriptural authority. Jesus three times forbids marriage to a put away woman. Christ says no, brother Wallace says yes.

Based on Jesus' prohibition against marrying a woman, I teach the following in such a scenario: When a fornicating husband seeks to divorce his wife, she must engage herself in the divorce process with the full intention of putting him away for fornication. It matters not what the divorce papers ultimately say as to the reason. It matters not what the Judge eventually says as to the reason. She must not sit still and become the put away wife. If she allows herself to be put away, she is forbidden remarriage.


(I may include other writing in my note to the group. But this will be the text of the clarification/apology you have asked for.)

David Jr.

____________________________________________________________________

Wallace’s 3rd Response

From: Steven J. Wallace [swallace8722@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:42 PM
To: 'David Watts Jr.'
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: As per Brian Adams Request]

David Watts:

 

I am through with this discussion. My eldest son woke up at 3:00 AM vomiting (which makes three out of five of us now) and I have more important things to do with my time than argue over some Pharisaic protocol that the non-fornicator MUST do against her fornicating husband. It is amazing the Pharisees among us today who bind "methods" over the "cause" of divorce! You are in that camp. If you want to draw lines of fellowship over a method, so be it.   I will let you and the list spend your days consumed in such debating and splintering. I want NO part of it! I have given a thorough defense for what I teach. I defined it in clear terms. I have sustained it with arguments that you have not penetrated. You haven't answered my questions, therefore I am through with you and this discussion. TAKE ME OFF OF YOUR LIST. I don't want your material! If I continue to get material from you, then I will place a rule for my inbox to delete anything that comes from you.

 

You have not given the doctrinal protocol that MUST be done with scriptural references, yet you are rearing and seemingly obnoxiously anxious to tell the list that I am a false teacher for not agreeing with you. Rather than simply admitting that you goofed, mis-judged and mis-stepped, you will try to recover anything to give your earlier contention merit. You, Don Martin, and others can splinter over your own list of essential things the innocent must do. You better be thoroughly consistent in what you preach and draw lines of fellowship over, however.

 

You probably have so much work to do that you won't have time to write back!

 

Further, I wonder if you are also going to be sucked into the black hole of error that will:

If you choose a third alternative, that is mark and avoid those who disagree with your "method" for divorce but not over those who set aside the commandment of God, then realize the condemnation of Christ rests upon you as it did those of the same walk of old:

 

"'Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.' He answered and said to them, "'Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:2). You are seemingly a tradition builder and binder with your method. Yet, I wonder if "you also transgress the commandment of God" and have fellowship with those who teach "faithful children" means "faithful to the earthly father" and fellowship those who believe Romans 14 has no application today except verses 11, 12, and 16?  If you dare say, "The issue at hand is what the non-fornicator MUST do to not be a put away person," Jesus responds "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God?" Unless you practice what you preach and don't live it, you are merely an "actor" in this whole charade.  Besides, who are you to decide for the church what the "issue" ought to be? It seems to me that some think they can sit in the place of God!

 

You know David, you boasted to the list of how big of a man you are, of how you held the "highest" positions in the country's "largest" technology companies. I assume you must have been at the top of a company like Microsoft (as I don't know of a technology company that is larger than it in this country)?  But David, I don't care if you were Goliath, I don't care if you were president of this nation. In Christ all are on the same playing field and your standing in the world doesn't place you one inch above the slave in Christ!  "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19). I wonder if you, like Don Martin, teach that Romans 14 only has three applicable passages in it today? I wonder if you, like Don Martin, teach that faithful children means to "faithful to the earthly father?"

 

Before you ever respond to me again, you need to consider your ways, ". . .considering yourself lest you also be tempted" (Gal. 6:1).  And again, "You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself?" (Rom. 2:21a).

 

You had better have lived your doctrine to every divorced person and every remarried couple that you have ever contacted! Or, you are just a hypocrite, an actor seeking to make yourself known. If your contention regarding "method of a divorce" is on the same plateau as baptism for the remission of sins, then you should have done and are willing to look and investigate those divorced persons even as Paul interrogated the disciples at Ephesus regarding their baptism (Acts 19:9). You had better make sure that every divorced person has followed your doctrinal protocol lest they be "a put away person." I am not speaking about investigating divorces as to the cause. I do that when I preach. You need to go beyond that and investigate divorces as to the methods that men and woman have taken!

 

So, have at it. I suspect you have a lot of work to do! You shouldn't even have time to respond to this email. You've got a lot of investigating to start doing. Jump in, have fun!

 

Take me off of your list. I don't want any part of this diabolic "method binding" movement. I will, spend my time teaching people the gospel and also warning them of schisms created by seemingly Pharisees in the church who create their own code and laws regarding methods for which men must subject to.

 

If you ever get around to responding to my rebuttal or yours and send it to the list, I require you to place every email within that response to your list so that my complete teaching is laid clearly laid forth and things are not taken out of context.

 

Brotherly,

Steven J. Wallace

PS. There is a chance that I may be placing this entire discussion on our website so that others can be aware of these demonic developings.