Seven years ago, I debated a respected preacher who maintained that two Christians conjugally living together without what most think of as marriage was not sin and that the elders where they were members had no right to say anything to them.  He did not even contend for a common law marriage circumstance.  "A marriage license has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not two people are married," said he.  I have debated a number who have no concept of when divorce occurs.  I recall one woman whom I was counseling who claimed her husband had committed adultery, all of a sudden informed me that she had a date and had begun dating.  I emailed her back and asked her how she had fulfilled her state law requirements pertaining to the civil dissolution of her marriage so fast (it had only been about a month).  Her reply was, "I failed to tell you that I have also been talking to brethren....(all prominent preachers in the church) and they told me, 'It is o.k. that you go ahead and start dating, the civil divorcement has nothing to do with biblical divorcement.  When you left his house, you were biblically divorced at that point in time.'"  (See the addendum.)

     One wave of divorce errors involved the multiple cause for divorce doctrine. I only knew of a few who taught multiple causes for divorce at the time and even one of them, Mike Willis, did not want his teaching publicly addressed (he taught it publicly, though).  As a result of the deterioration of marriage in our society and the problems now seen in many local churches, more have come out of their closets, advocating multiple causes for divorce, even financial problems and emotional distress, which they interpret as "hindering one who is a Christian." Some of them are heard saying, "We are not advocating marriage to another, just different causes for divorce." These men know as well as I do that just about all of these people divorcing for causes other than fornication will marry another (Matt. 19: 9). What these men are not now telling is that many of them, if not all, have beliefs that will even allow these divorcing people to marry another later, while they have a living mate.  Another preacher just recently announced his allegiance to the multiple causes for divorce movement, Steven J. Wallace.

     While some men do not teach multiple causes for divorce, they mix and mingle with those who do.  Connie Adams is a good example of this unity-in-diversity about which I am writing.  Connie has become more and more involved in a working relationship with Mike Willis (now famous for his multiple causes for divorce doctrine) and others who also teach the same, all of them happily involved in the workings of the Guardian of Truth Foundation.  I predicted some time ago that the Guardian of Truth Foundation would become a primary promoter of the multiple causes for divorce doctrine and such has happened. Such foundations in which Christians come together to corporately preach the gospel are believed "untouchable" and can basically teach and do what they desire because, "We are not a local church."  Hence, such entities have historically been a major source of the injection of false doctrine into the Lord's church.

     "Let's all agree to disagree," this is what my disputant in the polygamy debate says.  I should not have any problems with him because he says that I must accept John and his five wives with whom John is conjugally living and because he accepts them (as long as civil law does not condemn them). He has no serious problem with John, his problem is with me because I maintain that polygamy is a sin and I cannot fellowship one in polygamy.

     One of the first to openly voice strong opposition to my teaching on multiple causes for divorce was Joe Price.  He was not openly advocating what his buddy Mike Willis was teaching, but, "Don, you are causing trouble by teaching against multiple causes for divorce and you must stop this," this was in the main his and other's thinking (see my exchange with Joe Price in the Polemic Exchange section).  Joe later agreed with the multiple cause doctrine).  No, we do not need to learn how to, "Let's all agree to disagree" not in matters of doctrine. What we need to learn is, "Let's all agree to agree on the teaching of God's word and to live and teach it without compromise!"