HOME | MAIN BOOKS PAGE | SITE MAP | EMAIL

MAIN PAGE | NEXT

OPEN LETTER

To Walter J. Livermore
23 Edward Street
Brantford, Canada

Dear Brother Livermore:

Your letter of September 18th is received, and I accept your assurance that you had no intention of deceiving anyone in your letter to Brother Denney.

At the same time you misrepresent me when you affirm that I endorse the principle of your resolution. The principle of an affirmation or doctrine is the main idea; that which it is designed to teach. The purpose of your resolution is to establish the truth of the 4th clause of same, which affirms, that "A remarried divorcee, unless divorce was obtained because of adultery by other party, enlightened or unenlightened at time of divorce and remarriage, is living in a state of sin, which must be forsaken by permanent and complete separation before immersion for forgiveness of sins can take place."

You cannot give a "thus saith the Lord" proving that God demands "permanent and complete separation" in such cases. You claim that it is a logical deduction from the first three clauses of your resolution.

Now here is where we strongly differ, Brother Livermore. I regard your "logical deduction" as a lie -- a God dishonoring lie. Your so-called proofs appended to clause four, I regard as no proofs at all. Nothing but the plainest instructions, the most explicit command could justify brethren in making such harsh demands upon applicants for immersion who, while in ignorance of God's law, had committed this particular offense. God does not hold any specific act against those who sin in ignorance of His laws. He has never called upon such to go back and undo the past. All He demands of them when they have been "turned from darkness to light" is, that they give up the sinful practices of the past and walk before Him as obedient children. To deny this is equal to a denial of the elementary truth of the Gospel that when believers render the obedience of faith in baptism the past is overlooked, forgiven; they are given a clean sheet to make a new start.

As I wrote you in 1925, Brother Livermore, your contention on divorce makes God appear unjust. Any teaching that does this is, in essence, a lie, though volumes of sophisticated arguments may have been written in its support. God does not penalize the honest-hearted for believing His word. In your teaching He does. You represent Him as singling out certain offenders-not the greater, but the lesser offenders-for special punishment. They must go back and undo the past as far as possible, though hearts be broken and families torn apart in the process. He does not call upon the liar, the thief, to do this; only those who have been guilty of a lesser offense-having been divorced and remarried in days of darkness. So you teach.

The working out of such a theory would make manifest its opposition to the laws of both God and man. A woman, for instance, who had been honorably married to a man who had divorced his first wife for causes other than adultery, becomes enlightened in the truth and applies for immersion. She is refused this privilege unless she separates from her husband; while in the case of the husband, under similar circumstances, he must abandon his wife, whom he has promised to love, support and cherish, and become a criminal in the eyes of Gentile law before his application would be considered by you. Such teaching is of man and not of God. It represents the just and merciful God of Israel as unkind and unjust, which is its all-sufficient condemnation. God's ways are equal, you make them unequal, like Israel of old (Ezek. 18:25).

The strongest evidence against your contention is found in the fact that among the multitudes of Israelites converted at Pentecost, none were required to separate from their wives, or wives from their husbands, although there must have been many among them who had been divorced for what you call "trivial reasons," as divorce was common among the Jews under the Law. Is God so partial as to demand of Gentiles what He did not exact of His specially responsible people the Jews? Perish the thought.

You harp much on the fact that "remarried divorcees" are living in a state of sin, as though unaware that all mankind are by nature in a state of sin. The distinction you make between this class of sinners and others is unscriptural. When, through the obedience of faith, Christ becomes "righteousness" unto them (1 Cor. 1:30), dare you say that they are still in a state of sin? You say, in effect, that families must be broken up before God can forgive one particular kind of sin. Away with such folly.

When honest-hearted, believing men and women, humbly confess that they are sinners, and accept with grateful humility the provision of God's mercy and goodness in Christ for their justification, it is not for man to sit in vexing judgment, and presumptuously try to exclude them from the benefits of the Gospel, unless they submit to his unrighteous demands.

Finally, Brother Livermore, all the letters you have written, together with all the so-called proofs you have piled up, fail to prove the essential fact of your contention; namely, that under certain conditions God demands the separation of husbands and wives before they are fit subjects for immersion. In a matter of such serious consequence true brethren cannot be induced to accept assumption for evidence and assertion for proof. They want a plain "Thus saith the Lord"; nothing less will do.

As you are unable to give this, I would earnestly implore you to abandon your misleading and mischievous propaganda; lest you have to face the flaming indignation of the righteous Judge; who is coming soon to vindicate His Father's honor and name against all the blasphemies and culminations of a hundred generations.

Your sincere friend and well wisher, and brother in the faith.

William Smallwood
194 Carlow Avenue
Toronto, Canada
September 21, 1927

Bro. Oscar Beauchamp to Bro. Erby Wolfe