Law or Compassion:

SDA Approaches to Divorce, Remarriage and Church Fellowship

By Bert Haloviak
September, 1997
In July of 1976, GC President Robert Pierson wrote to the
president of the North Pacific Union concerning the then current
(and essentially still current) Church Manual policy on divorce
and remarriage. Even though some "might not like this policy,"
Pierson said, it "should be followed until it is changed."
[Pierson to M C Torkelsen, July 29, 1976]
Just several months earlier, however, Pierson expressed a
different perspective when a prominent member of a local
institution transferred to a position at Loma Linda University:
Through the years when folks have talked to me about church
discipline for an individual who had violated the seventh
commandment, my counsel, right or wrong, has always been that if
only the two people knew it or a very small group knew it, that
it would be better not to take it to the church board and have
action taken there and the actions of the people concerned spread
before the whole church. But if it got out or if there were very
many who knew about it, then, of course, there should be church
action. [Pierson to W D Eva, April 2, 1976]
When Pierson began his ministry in the 1940s, the Manual
called for the disfellowshiping and, after a period of
repentance, the rebaptizing of one guilty of adultery. In 1946,
censure became (and still remains) the minimal Church Manual
demand. "Flagrant" violators required disfellowshiping and
rebaptizing.
The difference between the "administrative" Robert Pierson
and the "pastoral" Robert Pierson illustrates a dilemma that has
existed within the Seventh-day Adventist Church almost from its
origins. This study purposes to document that predicament and
hint toward a resolution.
I. The Quest for Legislation in 19th Century Adventism
While Ellen White was engaged in prayer with a group of
Sabbatarian believers in February of 1854, she received a vision
that depicted "the state of some of the professed Israel of God":
I saw that the seventh commandment has been violated by some who
are now held in fellowship by the church. This has brought God's
frown upon them. This sin is awful in these last days, but the
church have brought God's frown and curse upon them by regarding
the sin so lightly. I saw it was an enormous sin and there have
not been as vigilant efforts made as there should have been to
satisfy the displeasure of God and remove His frown by taking a

strict, thorough course with the offender.

It has had an awful, corrupting influence upon the young.
They see how lightly the sin of breaking the seventh commandment
is regarded, and the one who commits this horrid sin thinks that
all he has to do is to confess that he was wrong and is sorry,
and he is then to have all the privileges of the house of God and
be held in embrace or fellowship of the church....
Those who break the seventh commandment should be suspended
from the church, and not have its fellowship nor the privileges
of the house of God. [Mss 3, 1854, emphasis supplied, and White
Estate, Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce: A
Compilation From the Writings of Ellen G White, 1989, pp 247-49,
hereafter TSB]
At the same time, Mrs White averred that "God hates unruly
children who manifest passion and evil tempers." Also, since
members met for worship in believer's homes, the houses of God's
people should be kept "tidy and neat from dirt and filth and all
uncleanness." Unless some members rectified this immediately they
should be put out of the camp." [Mss 1-1854 (Feb 12)]
Since the previous Ellen White statements were not generally
available until the 1989 TSB compilation, they were not used to
establish "a law or a rule dealing with these questions of
marriage, divorce, remarriage, and adultery." Willie White indeed
affirmed that Ellen White opposed using her writings for that
purpose. [W C White to C P Bollman, Jan 6, 1931] Thus, they had
no impact upon positions taken on this subject in church manuals
produced between 1932 and 1950, when the current policy on
divorce and remarriage was essentially established.
That Willie White version of the Ellen White perspective,
however, did not prevail regarding the two following Ellen White
statements. Despite the fact that each related to very specific
cases, her 1861 and 1863 statements each had major impact and, as
we shall see, were used to establish "laws and rules" on the
subject, despite Mrs White's apparent aversion to that usage.
When a particular case became generally known in 1861, Mrs
White counseled that, even with the fullest repentance on the
part of the guilty one, "the church must let his case alone." The
individual, "if he goes to heaven, it must be alone, without the
fellowship of the church." It was "impossible" for him "to be
fellowshiped by the church of God." The statement had a major
impact on SDA policy in the 20th century. [1T, p 215; TSB, pp
249-50]
Mrs White addressed another specific case in 1863:
A woman may be legally divorced from her husband by the laws
of the land and yet not divorced in the sight of God and
according to the higher law. There is only one sin, which is

adultery, which can place the husband or wife in a position where

they can be free from the marriage vow in the sight of God.
Although the laws of the land may grant a divorce, yet they are
husband and wife still in the Bible light, according to the laws
of God. [Letter, 4a, 1863; in Adventist Home, p 344 with supplied
subhed, "Still Married in God's Sight, Although Divorced," and in
TSB, pp 78-79]
As we shall see, the above statement would be [mis]used as a
"law" to consider adultery as the only basis for divorce and also
to advance the concept of perpetual adultery or "living in sin."
No doubt evidencing the Midwestern evangelistic thrust of
the 1860s, a question emerged at the Michigan State Annual
Conference whether a remarriage on grounds other than adultery
precluded non-SDAs from ever becoming members. The Michigan
Conference was unable to resolve the issue and referred it to the
Michigan Conference Committee. ["Business Proceedings of the
Michigan State Conference," in RH, Oct 14, 1862] No resulting
action has been uncovered.
A similar series of questions came before the 1879 GC
Session. Because the minutes of these meetings were voted to be
withheld from publication by the delegates, and because the
rationale for the proposed resolutions would surface time and
again within 20th century Adventism, the preamble and proposed
resolutions are here given in full:
The committee on the subject of unhappy marriages and
tobacco-selling, reported through its chairman, W H Littlejohn,
who, after speaking a few words in reference to the circumstances
which have brought this question up, offered the following
resolution:-"WHEREAS, There is at the present time an alarming tendency
in the public sentiment toward extremely lax views on the subject
of the marriage relation; and
"WHEREAS, Legal divorces are now granted by the courts for
causes which are in themselves utterly insufficient as the basis
of such action; and
"WHEREAS, We are anxious, as far as lies in our power, to
stay the tide of corruption which is thereby inundating the
nation; therefore
"RESOLVED, 1. That after mature deliberation, we express it
as our conviction that the New Testament plainly teaches the fact
that there is in this dispensation but one sufficient cause for
divorce; and that it is alone to be found in the commission of
the sin of adultery by one or the other of the parties to the
marriage contract.
"RESOLVED, 2. That we most earnestly recommend that in all

things our churches should pursue a course in harmony with the

above principles, by refusing to receive into their numbers any
persons who have been divorced for any other cause than that of
adultery, and have subsequently been married to another person,
with whom he or she is living in the relation of husband or wife,
during the lifetime of the person from whom such individual was
improperly divorced.
"RESOLVED, 3. That in all cases where it shall be found that
there are members of existing churches who are living together as
man and wife in violation of the foregoing principles, such cases
should not be dealt with until the advice of the General
Conference Committee, or that of the Conference committee of the
State to which the church belongs, shall have been sought and
obtained." [Handwritten minutes of 1879 GC Session in General
Conference Archives, emphasis supplied]
It is instructive to note that the framers of the proposed
resolutions would preamble their subject noting the "extremely
lax views" on divorce prevailing within society and that SDAs
should seek to "stay the tide of corruption" by adopting laws.
That premise guided the Church Manual actions since the 1930s.
There was unanimity at the session that adultery was the
sole grounds for divorce. The initial resolution with its
preambles thus unanimously passed without discussion. The second
resolution that precluded those who had remarried over grounds
other than adultery from joining the SDA church, provoked
considerable discussion. Since the question involved "such
serious consequences," reads the handwritten minutes, "the
brethren were averse to coming to a decision upon it till after
the most mature deliberation."
On the third day of the discussion, Mrs White addressed the
committee. The minutes read as follows:
EIGHTH MEETING, Nov 23, 2 pm. Prayer by Geo I Butler,
Minutes of previous meeting read and approved.
The discussion of the pending resolution was resumed, and
remarks were made by Elds Jas White, G I Butler, Smith Sharp, R J
Lawrence, D H Lamson, C L Boyd, R S Webber, M B Miller, D M
Canright, W H Littlejohn, and Mrs E G White.
The resolution was then laid on the table. [Ibid]
It is interesting that, in the aftermath of Ellen White's
appearance before the committee, not only was the second
resolution "laid on the table," but "the motion on the first
resolution and preambles was then reconsidered, and laid on the
table." The first resolution, upon which there was apparent
unanimity, established as a policy of SDAs that "adultery by one
or the other of the parties to the marriage contract" was the
"one sufficient cause for divorce." The third resolution was

thereupon laid on the table and a proposal that the General

Conference Committee prepare an "address" on the subject was
likewise rejected.
Since we don't have the actual text of what Ellen White
presented to the committee, we can only speculate upon the
withdrawal of the resolutions. Given the consistent position of
Mrs White from the 1860s onward, however [see next section], we
might reasonably assume that she would oppose ironclad
legislation on the subject.
George Butler, however, who was present at the meetings in
1879 and heard Ellen White, wrote sentiments similar to those
rejected in 1879. As president of the GC in 1883, Butler decried
the low state of morality within the United States regarding
cases growing out of marriage and divorce. He called for SDAs to
"adopt some principle upon which to act" in such cases. A set
policy, in the days when local churches lacked stationary
pastors, would resolve "questions connected with this subject too
intricate and perplexing to be decided by every local elder."
Here is his conclusion:
We should be careful lest the church be brought into
disrepute by taking into its membership those who have obtained
divorces for other causes than that which the Saviour allows.
This is a lax age in matters of this sort. Let us maintain purity
in all the relations of life. [Butler, "Marriage and Divorce,"
RH, Dec 18, 1883]
It would appear, however, that the only formal policy passed
on this subject in 19th century Adventism was that passed at the
1887 GC Session:
WHEREAS, Our Saviour has laid down the one sole ground on
which parties once married can be divorced; and,-WHEREAS, The practices of society have become most
deplorable in this respect, as seen in the prevalence of
unscriptural divorces; therefore,-20. RESOLVED, That we express our deprecation of this
great evil, and instruct our ministers not to unite in marriage
any parties so divorced. [Minutes of 1887 GC Session]
II. Ellen White Alternatives to the Legislative Approach
As Sabbatarian Adventists moved away from shut-door theology
in the 1850s to a strong evangelistic thrust in the 1860s, so did
a modifying perspective seem to exhibit itself in Ellen White's
insights on marriage and divorce.
Beginning in the mid-1860s, Ellen White began to make more
and more clear why an inflexible rule on divorce, remarriage and
church fellowship could not be applied to all cases. In 1864 she

"was shown" that despite marriage, each individual "had a

separate identity which the marriage covenant could not destroy."
[Letter 9, 1864, TSB, p 25] In 1868 Mrs White addressed a
situation where a husband was indeed seeking to destroy the
individuality of a believer by depriving her of attending
meetings. Mrs White stated that "God has claims upon her higher
than any earthly claim." Although her marriage "was a deception
of the devil," she should make the most of it, but not to the
extent of "depriv[ing] herself of the privilege of meetings, to
gratify an overbearing husband possessing the spirit of the
dragon." [2T, pp 99-100; TSB, p 27]
A joint statement issued by James and Ellen White, published
in the church paper in 1868, seemed almost to signal a new
perception of the subject in the period of evangelism. While some
guilty of adultery "have no real sense of their villainy," others
who had exhibited "sincere repentance" and "unqualified
confessions," after a period could be "restored to the church."
[James and Ellen White, Statement, RH, March 24, 1868]
Another scenario that suggested the need for a flexible
approach to the subject was propounded. If the guilty party did
not truly repent and the innocent remained anyway, the "moral
right" of the innocent to depart later seemed questionable
"unless" during that later period the "health and life" of the
innocent became endangered. [Ibid] The "unless" provision at
least suggests a later separation in cases of physical abuse.
In another specific case, Mrs White advised that a recentlyremarried mother not allow her husband to "separate her child
from her affection and care." The care of the mother for her
child transcended the claims of the unworthy husband: "God has
not released that mother from her responsibility because she has
married you," Mrs White wrote the husband. [Letter 4-1870, TSB,
pp 29-31]
Mrs White's counsel to the church at Ligonier, Indiana in
1878, while not addressing the issue of divorce and remarriage,
does address the question of church fellowship and contains
extremely relevant counsel on that subject. It may also somewhat
explain Ellen White's attitude toward issues that later emerged,
as we have seen, at the 1879 GC Session.
Mrs White decried the fact that church leaders at Ligonier
had disfellowshiped a recent convert because of his use of
tobacco. Mrs White considered the disfellowshiping out of harmony
with denominational practice. "We have borne for years with those
in the slavery of habit," she affirmed and "have not felt at
liberty to deal with them or separate them from the church."
Ellen White declared that "hasty decisions in such cases"
exhibited a "bigoted spirit, which will injure, and, if
tolerated, ruin any church." Her pastoral approach exhibited why
she avoided laws that demanded disfellowshiping:

God's care is over Dr Osborn [the one disfellowshiped], and

He will deal with him in a very different manner from that of his
brethren. The Doctor's habits are confirmed, his character is
formed, and at his age it is a great work to accept the truth and
to become transformed by it. This is not to be accomplished in a
day; but the work is going forward, and if he will sit as a
learner at the feet of Jesus, he will know him whom to know
aright is life eternal.
Although aware of the defiling nature and injurious effects
of tobacco, the Doctor has indulged in its use for many years.
This is a habit which is annoying to him, and which God would
have him overcome. In the name of Jesus, the mighty conqueror, he
can triumph over this defiling practice, and at last wear the
victor's crown....
There may be in the church those who do not honor the cause
of God, whose lives and characters reveal the deformity of sin.
But we must bear long, even with these, remembering how Jesus
bears with us; how sinful we have been, and how he loves us
still. Christ paid an infinite price to redeem us from ruin and
despair, and with hearts filled with gratitude to God, we should
manifest toward others the same love, tenderness, and
forbearance, that we would have him exercise toward us as sinful,
erring mortals. While we need grace and mercy every moment, and
forgiveness daily, how unbecoming for us to be so ready to
criticise, censure, and condemn our brethren who are of like
passions with ourselves.
A reckless disregard for souls has been manifested by the
church at Ligonier. ["Church Difficulties," Mss 1, 1878, pp 1718, 21-22, emphasis supplied]
As though to anticipate that members of the Ligonier Church
would decry a suggested "lowering of the church standards," Mrs
White countered:
Persons are attracted by sympathy and love; and many may
thus be won to the ranks of Christ and reform; but they cannot be
forced or driven. Christian forbearance, candor, consideration,
and courtesy toward all who do not see the truth as we do, will
exert a powerful influence for good. We must learn not to move
too fast, and require too much of those who are newly converted
to the truth....
Souls that are precious in the sight of God have been
oppressed, censured, abused, and severed from the church; and the
body of Christ is bleeding from these cruel wounds. [Ibid, pp 2223, emphasis supplied]
Ellen White continued to emphasize this compassionate
approach to church fellowship following the 1879 GC session. In
1880, in an article written for the Review she proclaimed, "We
should deal with the erring as Christ has dealt with us. He

pities our weaknesses, and so we should pity the erring." ["Order

in the Church," RH, April 15, 1880] "It is in our best selfinterest as a Church to exhibit forbearance," she proclaimed.
All, "especially the erring, should be kindly treated," she
counseled. [Mss 10, 1880]
Ellen White exhibited a revealing perspective in her
reaction to the mishandling of the case of an SDA pioneer
minister who was guilty of adultery. She had "about come to the
conclusion" that in such cases she would say nothing to her
"ministering brethren" if they did not know of the case. She
would herself "labor earnestly for the erring one, and encourage
him to hope in God's mercy and cling to the merits of a crucified
and risen Saviour." Such a procedure would, of course, preclude
church discipline. Ellen White felt vindicated in her approach
because "there is not the mingling of the elements of character
that brings justice and mercy and the love of God into beautiful
harmony" when such cases were handled. [Letter 16, 1887, TSB, pp
240-42]
Ellen White, throughout her ministry, perceived that the
only Biblical ground for divorce was adultery. She did, however,
from time to time exhibit an expanded understanding of what
constituted adultery. When a minister influenced youth to
practice self abuse, he protested to Ellen White that he thereby
did not commit adultery. Ellen White responded: "God charges
adultery against everyone who doeth these things, and all who
will communicate these vile practices to another are polluting
that soul with vile imaginations." Amazingly, however, Ellen
White gave counsel to the repentant minister that assured his
retaining his church membership status:
You ask me if you shall make a public confession. I say, No.
Do not dishonor the Master by making public the fact that one
ministering in the Word could be guilty of such sin as you have
committed. It would be a disgrace to the ministry. Do not give
publicity to this matter by any means. It would do injustice to
the whole cause of God. It would create impure thoughts in the
minds of many even to hear these things repeated. Defile not the
lips even by communicating this to your wife, to make her ashamed
and bow her head in sorrow. Go to God and to the brethren who
know this terrible chapter in your experience and say what you
have to say, then let prayer be offered to God in your behalf.
[Letter 106a, 1896, TSB, pp 127-28, emphasis supplied]
Additional case studies relating to Will Wales, Sidney
Brownsberger and Stephen Belden illustrate Ellen White distancing
herself from the concept of "living in sin" or perpetual adultery
of one who remarries on grounds other than adultery. Those that
repented from violation of the seventh commandment should not be
"cut off from fellowship." Indeed, after sending various
documents illustrating the diverse cases Ellen White addressed,
Willie White wrote this in 1931:

After reading the documents I sent you today, you will say,
Well, he has not given me anything authoritative from Sister
White that directly answers the question. But I think you will
see from what I am sending you that it was Sister White's
intention that there should not go forth from her pen anything
that could be used as a law or a rule dealing with these
questions of marriage, divorce, remarriage, and adultery. She
felt that the different cases where the devil had let men into
serious entanglements were so varied and so serious, that should
she write anything that could be considered as a rule for
settling such cases, it would be misunderstood and misused. [W C
White to C P Bollman, Jan 6, 1931, TSB, pp 6-7, emphasis
supplied. See also Ellen White Letter 175-1901 in TSB, pp 225-26;
W C White to Brother McVagh, Sept 15, 1911 in TSB, pp 230-31; W C
White to G W Anglebarger, Oct 6, 1911 in TSB, p 219; W C white
Statement, Feb 21, 1927 in TSB, pp 220-21; W C White Statement,
Jan 6, 1931 in TSB, pp 223-25]
III. A Summary of Annual Council/Church Manual Developments,
1925-1995
One decade after the death of Ellen White, Seventh-day
Adventists established what appears to be the first general
policy on divorce. This occurred at the 1925 Autumn Council. The
Council approved the report of the Committee on Moral and
Spiritual Standards. That report noted the "moral degeneracy"
that then existed "on every side." The marriage relation was the
"target of special attack by the enemy of all righteousness."
Divorce was "alarmingly on the increase." Surrounded by such evil
influences, "the church of Christ" must stand in the "purity and
integrity of her high and holy calling." [Minutes of 1925 Autumn
Council, Oct 13, 1925]
Since SDAs had not to this point approved the concept of a
church manual, resolutions were couched in "advisory" rather than
legislative language. Nothing was said in the resolution about
the question of church fellowship other than the general council
"diligence in church discipline be used in maintaining the
highest moral standards in the church." The Council "look[ed]
with disfavor upon the ring ceremony" and upon ministers
"officiating at marriages of believers with unbelievers or with
those not of our faith." It "greatly deplore[d] the evil of
divorce and place[d] its emphatic disapproval upon any legal
action for the separation of those once married on any ground
other than that given in Matthew 5:32." It placed its
"unqualified disapproval" upon literature containing "sensational
stories, whether true or false," and declared its "emphatic
disapproval of attending moving picture theaters and other
questionable places of amusement" and called upon young and old
"to refrain from this evil practice." [Ibid]
In 1932 SDA leaders accepted their initial Church Manual. In
the section "Reasons for Which Members May Be Disfellowshiped,"
adultery, fornication and other open violations of the law of God

were listed. Also mentioned is "the remarriage of a divorced

person, except the innocent party in a divorce for adultery." A
footnote to the latter statement makes it apparent that this was
the first time SDAs had taken such a position: "In view of the
fact that the denomination has not heretofore had a written
statement regarding this matter, it is not expected that the
application of this policy shall be made retroactive." [1932 CM,
p 100 fn]
Besides reaffirming the 1925 AC resolution, the 1932 Manual
denied SDAs ministers participating in the remarriage of members
who had divorced unless "on Scriptural grounds." Members who
remarried for any other reason were not to be "continue[d] in
church fellowship." The prerogative of the "innocent party" to
remarry was recognized, but "the right to remarry of the guilty
party to a divorce secured on Scriptural grounds, is not
recognized. The right of either party to a divorce secured on any
other than Scriptural grounds, to remarry, is not recognized by
the church." [1932 CM, pp 176-77]
"Scriptural grounds" were defined from an Ellen White
statement in Mount of Blessing, p 99 and Matthew 5:32: "In the
sermon on the mount, Jesus declared plainly that there could be
no dissolution of the marriage tie except for unfaithfulness to
the marriage vow."
Apparently without careful theological analysis and by
taking one Ellen White statement and combining it with the 1925
Autumn Council resolution, the denomination now took the position
that barred from its membership anyone who remarried after
obtaining a divorce upon grounds other than "fornication." [Of
course, the Ellen White statements that argued against such a
position or the premise that urged her writings not be used as a
law, were not known at the time.]
The 1934, 1938 and 1940 Church Manuals maintained the same
position taken in the 1932 Manual.
Delegates to the 1941 GC Session saw a need "of
crystallizing a more definite policy relative to the matter of
our attitude toward the question of divorce" and thus recommended
that the General Conference Executive Committee appoint "a
commission of not less than fifteen members to study the question
of divorce, and report to the [1942] Autumn Council." The
recommendations of the commission were approved by the 1942
Autumn Council and included in the Church Manual for 1942 [At
that time, it was not necessary for the Church Manual to be
revised solely at a GC Session.]
Ellen White was again used to establish a position not in
harmony with the thrust of her writings on the subject. The 1942
action read: "In the case of a church member guilty of the sin of
adultery, the church take action in the matter, and, in harmony
with the council of the Lord, disfellowship such a person from

the church." [1942 CM, p 188, emphasis supplied. Ellen White

clearly did not establish an inflexible rule that disfellowshiped
everyone guilty of adultery. Most likely, however, the 1942
rationale sprang from the statement in 1T, p 215 cited above.]
The denomination, for the first time, demanded rebaptism for
those disfellowshiped from the church for adultery, providing
they reconciled with their spouse or remained single if divorced,
"and who later [gave] satisfactory evidence of genuine repentance
and confession." [1942 CM, p 188]
The position that the adulterous party in a divorce could
not remarry and hold church membership was reaffirmed and
strengthened by adding the phrase "he be not readmitted to church
membership so long as the unscriptural relationship continues."
The clear implication was that the guilty party was living in a
continuing state of adultery and until that state was broken
could not regain church membership.
The 1942 action, however, contained a suggestive phrase that
seemed to imply that "Scriptural" grounds for divorce might
include more than adultery: "We recognize adultery as justifiable
ground for divorce, with the right of the innocent party to
remarry as taught by the Saviour, recorded in Matthew 5:32; 19:9,
and Luke 16:18." The phrase could be interpreted to mean that
while adultery was "justifiable ground" other grounds were not
precluded.
The 1946 GC Session made it apparent that policies voted at
the 1942 Autumn Council were not in harmony with the desires of
SDAs around the world. For that reason, delegates voted "That the
Church Manual be revised, and that all changes or revision of
policy that are to be made in the Manual shall be authorized by
the General Conference session." [1946 GC Session Bulletin, p
197]
The 1946 Session delegates modified the 1942 Manual on the
automatic disfellowshiping of adulterers and their readmission
[if unmarried] solely by rebaptism. Instead, those experiencing
"deep repentance and full and free confession, giving evidence
that genuine conversion has taken place," could be disciplined by
censure "for a stated period of time." While there might be
"flagrant" cases that could require rebaptism, such was not
automatic. A new aspect of the 1946 GC Session action involved
counseling with the local conference or mission on cases of
adultery "and in all other cases presenting acute problems in
marriage relationships." [Ibid]
The 1950 GC Session approved an extensive policy on "Divorce
and Remarriage in Relation to Church Membership," that remained
essentially unmodified within the Manual until 1995.
The Ellen White statement, "Jesus declared plainly that
there could be no dissolution of the marriage tie, except for

unfaithfulness to the marriage vow" was again added to the

Manual, thus suggesting that Jesus and Ellen White considered the
Sermon on the Mount statement to establish a law for divorce.
The 1950 position reiterated that voted in 1946: "A spouse
found guilty of adultery by the church shall be subject to church
discipline. Even though the transgressor may be genuinely
repentant, he (or she) shall be placed under censure for a stated
period of time." Disfellowshiping occurred if the transgressor
gave no evidence of full repentance. When the guilty party
remarried, both he and his new spouse (if a member) were to be
disfellowshiped. [1950 GC Bulletin, p 228]
If a divorce occurred on grounds other than "unfaithfulness
to the marriage vow" "the party or parties securing the divorce
shall come under the censure of the church" unless personal
safety was at risk. "In the event that either spouse who is a
church member remarries--unless in the meantime the other party
has remarried, committed adultery, or died--the one remarrying
shall be disfellowshiped from the church." [Ibid]
The action did, however, provide means for those so
disfellowshiped to regain their church membership: "In a case
where any endeavor by a genuinely repentant offender to bring his
marital status into line with the divine ideal presents
apparently insuperable problems, his (or her) plea for
readmittance shall before final action is taken be brought by the
church through the pastor or district leader to the conference
committee for counsel and recommendation as to any possible steps
that the repentant one, or ones, may taken to secure such
readmittance." Readmittance should be by rebaptism. [Ibid, p 229]
The premise of perpetual adultery with no hope of regaining
SDA church membership unless divorcing the second spouse, was
thus dropped from the Church Manual.
The 1970s again illustrated a sense of the inadequacy of the
Church Manual statement on divorce and remarriage. The 1974
Annual Council "received" a North American study document on
"Divorce and Remarriage" and sought input on that document for
the next two years when it approved by the 1976 Annual Council.
The major purpose of the "guidelines" section of the
statement was "primarily to help answer questions related to the
readmission to church membership of remarried divorced persons."
The document claimed to "assist in the administration of the
church's policy on divorce and remarriage as it was adopted at
the 1950 GC session. It makes no change in it." [AC, 1976, p 24]
By 1976, much more of the Ellen White counsel on marriage
and divorce had become known to church administrators. A
particular case is cited where Ellen White had counselled that a
"nonscripturally" divorced and remarried couple "not be compelled
to separate and/or return to their former spouses." That

conclusion abrogated the previous position that Ellen White

considered anyone remarrying, except the innocent in a case of
adultery, to be living in sin and thus perpetually barred from
SDA church membership.
The guidelines established advisory committees on the union
and local conference levels to review cases of divorce and
remarriage. It established criteria for readmission to membership
and established procedures for readmission. The rebaptism
provision within the Church Manual was retained.
Besides the "guidelines" section of the 1976 Annual Council
action, the action contained a number of "additional
recommendations" that appeared within three appendix sections.
Appendix C outlined a new perspective on the issue of divorce and
remarriage and clearly modified for North America the position
outlined within the Church Manual.
Fornication was defined more broadly than previously to
refer to "unchastity, prostitution, and immoral practices of many
kinds by both married and unmarried people":
"Fornication," as related to questions of divorce, can
possibly include the following:
a. Perversions of, and deviations from, a normal sex life,
which either do not disappear with treatment, or for which no
therapy is sought. The evaluation of the emotional illness and
the degree to which it physically and psychologically annuls the
accepted pattern of sex behavior in a Christian marriage is to be
made by the minister in consultation with a Seventh-day Adventist
psychiatrist, psychologist, or qualified marriage counselor.
b. Homosexual practices are recognized as a misuse of sexual
powers, and disapproved in scripture. As a violation of the
divine intention in marriage, they have thus become just cause
for divorce.
c. Persistent indulgence in intimate relationships with a
partner of the opposite sex other than the spouse, even though
falling short of coitus [intercourse], is a form of
unfaithfulness, bordering on actual adultery, and may be
contributory to divorce. [Ibid, p 43]
The 1995 Session modified the Manual to partially reflect
what North America had done in 1976, broadening the definition of
fornication to include "sexual perversions, including homosexual
practices" as being just causes for divorce. It can be seen by
comparing the 1995 actions to sections a-c of Appendix C of the
1976 AC action, however, that the Church Manual is not as
comprehensive in its definition of grounds for divorce as the
1976 AC action. It should be observed, however, that the 1977
Annual Council modified the definition of fornication that had
been accepted in 1976. Omitted were such terms as "deviations

from normal sex life," "therapy," "emotional illness," as

possibly to be included within the definition of fornication.
Also, "intimate relations short of coitus with a partner other
than the spouse" may result in church discipline, rather than
"contributory to divorce," as in 1976.
The 1995 GC Session also: "Voted, To request the General
Conference Executive Committee to establish a study commission,
with representation from all of the world field, to reconsider
the matter of divorce and remarriage, and make appropriate
recommendations for changes in the Church Manual." [1995 GC
Session, July 4, RH, July 7, 1995]
IV. A Few Suppositions on How We Got Where We Are
1. The Ellen White Factor
In 1989 when the White Estate Trustees compiled the Ellen
White testimonies on sexual behavior, adultery and divorce, they
placed this statement in the preface:
The present compilation is not designed to serve as a manual
of rules for dealing with immorality, infidelity, or unscriptural
divorce and remarriage. No manual could cover every possible
moral irregularity. When W C White was asked for an authoritative
statement from his mother that would serve as a standard by which
to settle all cases of unscriptural marriage, he replied:...'It
was Sister White's intention that there should not go forth from
her pen anything that could be used as a law or a rule dealing
with these questions of marriage, divorce, remarriage, and
adultery.'...
We concur fully with Ellen White's view. [TSB, pp 6-7]
An analysis of the work of the various commissions
established in the 1940s and 1950s, when the present manual
position was largely established, clearly reveals that the
position taken by the White Estate Trustees is a relatively
recent one. Analysis of the work of the commission of 1941-42
illustrates the dilemma.
The Ellen White factor assumed prominence when each member
of the commission received a compilation of both published and
unpublished statements of Mrs White entitled "Grounds for
Divorce, Remarriage After Divorce and the Separating of Those
Married After Unscriptural Divorces." The nine-page compilation
had been prepared July 28, 1940, and was made available solely
for the personal study of commission members since the materials
had not been generally released. [W H Howell (Secy to GC
President) to Members of the Committee on Divorce, July 30, 1941]
The secretary of the White Estate had prepared subhedings to
accompany the compiled statements that seemed to suggest that
Ellen White was clearly establishing "rules." Perhaps the most

dramatic use of a subhed was "Still Married in God's Sight"

centered over the following Ellen White statement:
A woman may be legally divorced from her husband by the laws
of the land, and yet not divorced in the sight of God and
according to the higher law. There is only one sin, which is
adultery, which can place the husband or wife in a position where
they can be free from the marriage vow in the sight of God.
Although the laws of the land may grant a divorce, yet they are
husband and wife still in the Bible light, according to the laws
of God. [White Estate, "Grounds for Divorce, Remarriage After
Divorce and the Separating of Those Married After Unscriptural
Divorces," July 28, 1940, from Letter 4a, 1863]
Given the perception of the role of Ellen White in the
period, this quote seems to deny divorce upon grounds other than
adultery and to provide a rationale for the premise of perpetual
adultery. This 1863 Ellen White statement came to have a major
impact upon the 1940s commission, and its influence continued
when it was published with the subhed "Still Married in God's
Sight, Although Divorced" in The Adventist Home in 1952 [p 344]
and used in Sabbath School lessons appearing August 15, 1964,
January 29, 1966 and February 24, 1982.
Additional subheds accompanying Ellen White statements
clearly seemed to imply legislation: "The Only Justifiable Cause
for Divorce," "The Provoking Party Has No Right to Remarry," etc.
Because of unawareness of other Ellen White materials on the
subject, her available statements were decisive in formulating
the 1942 Church Manual position. This occurred despite the fact
that former GC president William Spicer and theologian Roland
Loasby presented arguments to the commission that suggested
desertion as grounds for divorce and remarriage. Spicer and
Loasby could be pitted against Ellen White and thus were rendered
ineffective.
The positions taken by Loasby and Spicer, however,
illustrate an interesting aspect of the resulting 1942 Church
Manual statement that emphasized adultery as a justifiable ground
for divorce. In a meeting of the commission on September 12,
1942, "considerable time was spent exploring the question as to
whether there were any grounds for divorce, other than that of
the violation of the seventh commandment." Spicer, in a prepared
statement to the group argued from 1 Corinthians 7 that Paul
considered that "desertion, a willful, utter forsaking of the
other destroys the tie that binds husband and wife and frees the
innocent partner from the marriage bond." Spicer believed that
"the apostle Paul does state clearly" that the innocent partner
was not left "under life-long bonds to a relationship that is
dissolved." [W E Read (Secy of Committee on Divorce) to Members
of the Committee on Divorce, c Jan 1943 and "Considerations
Presented at One of the Meetings of the Committee on Divorce,
Held at the GC Office, Sept 12, 1942]

Roland Loasby, then chairman of the New Testament Department

at the SDA Theological Seminary and a well-recognized New
Testament scholar and linguist, analyzed the language and context
of Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians 7 and concluded, "The
desertion of the unbelieving party leaves the believing party
free, making willful desertion a legitimate ground for divorce."
According to Loasby's analysis, Paul's admonition, "let her
remain unmarried" (v 11) "does not deny the legal right to
remarry; it cannot do that, for the contract is broken":
To deny a Christian woman the right to remarry under such
circumstances would be, I believe, way beyond what Paul intended.
The bond, contract, is broken utterly. It can no longer hold or
influence. One cannot deny that Paul would prefer a divorced
party to remain single if that party had control over his
desires; for Paul considered that the ideal existence; but one
could seriously question the stand that Paul denied the legal
right of the divorced party to remarry. [Ibid, and "Prof Loasby's
Remarks on 1 Cor 7," pp 3-5]
In the aftermath of the Spicer and Loasby positions, a
three-man committee was appointed to rewrite the 1940 Manual
position. It was admonished of a need for "caution in any
statement which might be drawn up." Appointed were J F Wright, F
M Wilcox and W E Read. Despite that fact that the following had
been voted at the first meeting of the commission: "VOTED, That
we reaffirm our position that adultery is a justifiable ground
for divorce,..." the three-man committee brought back "RESOLVED,
That we reaffirm our historical position that the justifying
ground for divorce is adultery...." Apparently some modification
later occurred on the floor of the 1942 Autumn Council. The final
action reads, "We recognize adultery as justifiable ground for
divorce." [Minutes of Sept 10, 12 and 23 of Committee on Divorce]
It seems apparent that, in 1942, as in later commissions,
theological analysis could be supplanted by statements drawn from
Ellen White that would be used as "laws."
2. "Conservative" Reactions
While the 1942 Autumn Council action precluded a remarried
"nonscripturally" divorced member from regaining SDA membership
"so long as the unscriptural relationship continue[d]," the 1950
session delegates made provision for such a "genuinely repentant
offender" who faced "apparently insuperable problems" in seeking
to remedy the past moral lapse. That modification brought to the
forefront a number who believed that the Church was now allowing
"Achans" within its membership and the lowered standards would
preclude the latter rain from falling and could well be the
"omega" of apostasy supposedly foreseen by Ellen White.
Marguerite Williams, a physician in Arizona and her husband,
a dentist, began a crusade shortly after the 1950 Session that
lasted well into the 1980s. Their widely-distributed studies,

compilations and newsletters became known throughout the

denomination. The Drs Williams distributed their materials to all
English-speaking ministers listed in the SDA Yearbooks, Annual
Council delegates, members of the various divorce and remarriage
study commissions of the period, GC officials and to laymembers
through the Book and Bible Houses.
The Williams' alleged a conspiracy on the part of A V Olson,
GC Vice President and member of the 1949-50 committee that
revised the 1942 and 1946 actions on divorce and remarriage that
reported at the 1950 GC Session. According to the Williams,'
Olson had deviously manipulated the Session to compromise SDA
standards and allow those "still living in sin" to regain church
membership. Merely a cursory look at correspondence of the 1970s
reveals the major impact of the doctors. Pastors, local
conference leaders and even division presidents clearly reflected
the positions received from the materials distributed by the
Williams'. Only a few examples are here given:
In 1971, presidential assistant F C Webster wrote to the Drs
Williams, "I have personally had your manuscript on 'Unscriptural
Divorce Relationships' in my file for some time and have had
occasion to use it from time to time in my ministry." [July 19,
1971] Indeed, during the year 1976 alone, R O Williams wrote
Webster "We have sent out close to 4000 of the book and 5000 of
the Supplement" to leaders listed in the SDA Yearbook. He
considered the impact so significant that "when Elder Pierson
mentions 'sin in the camp," he no doubt was "thinking of our
subject." "We believe there will be no latter rain" as long as
perpetual adulterers retained church membership. [Aug 11, 1976]
The pastor of the Knoxville Ave SDA Church of Peoria,
Illinois, sent this observation to the GC in 1975:
It seems to me the general appeal is to find a way of
reentry by baptism into the church while professing "repentance"
but still living in the state of matrimony for which the person
was disfellowshiped....
We have paid a heavy price in an ever increasing
deterioration in church morals since our change in the manual in
the 1950s....
I have read Drs Roy and Marguerite Williams' "Unscriptural
Divorces and Social Relationships," a study from the Bible and
Spirit of Prophecy and feel that it is one of the best studies we
have on the subject. [To Lowell Bock, Sept 22, 1975]
The president of the Trans-Africa Division wrote this to
Robert Pierson in 1976:
I am convinced that the frequency of divorce and remarriage
in our church is due, in part, to the liberalization of the
position we took on this issue at the time a new policy was

adopted by the General Conference [in 1950]....

Elder, I believe the nub of the issue is, what position
should we take as a church to the remarriage of a guilty party.
Is the remarriage a single act of adultery or is it a continuous
act as long as one remains in such a state? It would appear that
this was the position we took at one time as a church as is
reflected in the 1942 Church Manual. It would also appear that
this is somewhat the position taken by the Spirit of Prophecy.
These following statements worry me in the light of what is being
proposed in this working paper. For instance, "God gave only one
cause why a wife should leave her husband or the husband leave
his wife which was adultery. Let this ground be prayerfully
considered." [AH 342] And again, "A woman may be legally divorced
from her husband by the laws of the land and yet not divorced in
the sight of God and according to the higher law. There is only
one sin which is adultery which can place the husband or wife in
a position where they can be free from the marriage vow in the
sight of God. Although the laws of the land may grant a divorce,
yet they are husband and wife still in the Bible light according
to the laws of God."... [AH 344]
Now, Elder, if Sister White says that husband and wife are
still recognized by God as united even though they may get a
divorce and marry another, would this not infer that in the
second marriage, one is living in open sin?...
There is another thing which bothers me. In opening the door
wide so that a person can come back into the church after five
years, will this not lead the conservative element of our church
to believe that we are lowering the standards and that the church
is now condoning the remarriage of the guilty party. In other
words, is the solution of the problem going to create a
confidence gap in the leadership of the church by members
believing we are bringing our standards more into line with the
times in which we live....
I believe that it is on such issues as this that a schism
can develop in the church which has caused many conservative
elements of other denominations to pull away from the mainline
church due to liberalism which has characterized these churches.
[May 26, 1976, emphasis supplied]
3. Inconspicuous Role Granted the Theologians
It would appear that the analysis of Roland Loasby in 1942
was the first time for SDAs that careful study from the
scriptures on the issue of divorce and remarriage was conducted
as part of a commission's work. Evidence [or rather lack of such
evidence] seems to suggest that SDAs had rather quickly concluded
from the Matthew texts that Jesus was establishing a type of
church manual rule for divorce when He said, "Whoever divorces
his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman
commits adultery." [Matthew 19:9]

Roland Loasby challenged that assumption not only in his

study for the 1942 committee, but also as a member of the 1949-50
committee. Christ was not establishing a legal case for divorce,
argued Loasby, but was placing blame upon the one who disrupted
the marriage. The term porneia used by Jesus encompassed "all
illicit connection, all forms of unchastity." The term "cannot be
limited to any one form of sexual transgression." Loasby
considered that Jesus was not focusing upon "one special cause
for divorce over against the idea of a number of causes," but
instead was prohibiting all causes for divorce "as being against
God's ideal from the beginning." He emphasized:
Many of our people declare that Christ's words here make a
wife's fornication a legal cause for which a husband may secure a
divorce. But the Lord is not concerned with establishing
legalism, or giving a legal verdict; rather he is concerned with
the setting aside of a Divine law, therefore of the immorality
involved in the disruption of marriage; and in all His utterances
He places the blame on the one who disrupts the marriage. This is
truly a magnification of law, a genuinely moral exposition of the
7th commandment. ...No, Jesus was not discussing legal steps, He
was magnifying the law; which magnification is the Christian's
standard today. [Roland Loasby, "Is There Christian Divorce?" c
1949, emphasis supplied]
Loasby's analysis extended to the question of the wife being
made to commit adultery and the issue of desertion as grounds for
divorce. His perspective [beyond the scope of this paper] and
careful theological analysis certainly suggests the necessity for
a wider hearing than the few people on the 1949-50 commission
that may have read his paper and considered it to be out of
harmony with the position held by Ellen White and earlier
Adventists.
Theological analysis in the 1970s by Don Neufeld, Frank
Holbrook, C G Tuland, William G Johnsson, Jim Cox, Richard Nies
and others who looked carefully at the contextual setting of the
gospel and Pauline passages offer deep insight and a more
accurate understanding of the issue as addressed within
Scripture. All agree that just as Ellen White did not establish
inflexible laws and rules for divorce and remarriage, neither was
that the purpose of Jesus and Paul. [Don Neufeld, "Divorce and
Remarriage," c 1971; Frank B Holbrook, "A Brief Analysis of NT
Texts Pertaining to Divorce," 1973; C G Tuland, "Divorce or No
Divorce? An Insoluble Problem," 1976 mss sent to R H Pierson's
office and referred to N C Wilson; William G Johnsson letter to
Lowell Bock giving brief analysis of New Testament texts on
divorce and remarriage; Jim Cox to Neal Wilson, March 13, 1980
Analyzing the NAD Divorce, Remarriage and Church Membership
Statement and Richard D Nies, "Divorce and Remarriage," 1979
(partial transcript from taped presentations)]
The realization of the wrong assumptions based upon a

previously limited access to the Ellen White writings on divorce

and remarriage should give the views of such theologians a more
welcomed and widespread hearing.
Notice this premise concerning Ellen White on the subject of
desertion by the director of the Biblical Research Institute in
1977, in contrast, however:
It is interesting, even if disconcerting, to discover that
Ellen White has not published comment on this particular passage,
verses 1-22 of 1 Cor 7, so we have no specific help there. At the
same time if there were an understanding among our earlier
believers and leaders, including Ellen White, that this
particular verse left the believing partner free to remarry if
his unbelieving partner left him by divorce, we should certainly
have had some counsel to that effect and the practice would have
been widely recognized throughout the church by this time. [To
Earl W Amundson, Nov 30, 1977, emphasis supplied]
He seemed to reason that since Ellen White had not commented
on 1 Cor 7 as considering desertion grounds for divorce, we
should assume she did not favor that interpretation.
V. Probing Some Alternatives to the Legislative Approach
1. Pastoral Over Church Manual Resolution of Specific Cases
When leaders of the European Division returned from the 1932
Autumn Council, some gave counsel they considered to be in
harmony with the section of the then-approved Church Manual that
"the church must administer discipline in the maintenance of a
high standard of moral purity and integrity" to those whose
immoral actions "threaten[d] to disrupt family ties." [p 176]
They interpreted the policy to demand disfellowshiping. The Latin
Union at its conference session adopted a policy of
disfellowshiping any member found guilty of adultery. There was
widespread opposition, however, when the voted policy was passed
on to the local churches. While some accepted it, the majority
objected. The president of the Southern European Division, A V
Olson, observed:
They said they could not accept the policy unless we could
prove to them that it was in harmony with the teachings of the
Bible and the Spirit of prophecy. They wanted a divine statement
upholding the policy. We could produce no such statement, and we
never found a Division or General Conference man who could. [A V
Olson and W R Beach to GC Officers, June 8, 1943]
Thus, in 1933, the Southern European Division, with GC
President W A Spicer present, adopted a policy averting
disfellowshiping any who exhibited "true and genuine repentance."
Olson observed:
As soon as this policy reached the churches, it met with

universal approval and cooperation. Both workers and members feel

that it is consistent, just, and in harmony with the instruction
given us by the Lord in both the Bible and the Testimonies.
[Ibid, Minutes of Southern European Division, Dec 19, 1933]
That action did not gain widespread acceptance, however,
until the 1946 GC Session allowed for censure, rather than the
disfellowshiping of a repentant adulterer.
From time to time the General Conference Officers, in their
unofficial meetings, adopted a more "pastoral" position on
questions of divorce and remarriage than a strict reading of the
Manual would allow. Just after publication of the 1932 Manual a
case came before the Officers relating to a woman who had married
at 14 and soon divorced over "nonscriptural" grounds and after
remarriage her second husband died. She now sought counsel
whether another marriage would bring church discipline. Minutes
reveal that the Officers engaged in "considerable discussion"
concerning the "perplexing problems that arise because of these
involved relationships." They considered that "her later
acceptance of the truth had changed her status" and "that she
should not be required to forego marriage because of the early
mistake." [OM, May 23, 1932]
A similar position was taken when a worker in the East
Persian Mission had, prior to becoming an SDA, divorced his wife
over "incompatibility," and remarried. Officers expressed the
opinion that "it is not necessary that he put away his present
wife" and "we see no reason based on standards against his being
[denominationally] employed" unless "on the grounds of
expediency" his situation would hinder the work. [OM, July 25,
1935]
In late 1945 when the question of whether insanity could be
a cause for divorce, the Officers gave the opinion "seldom should
church discipline be administered when such a divorce is obtained
unless it seems that hasty and unwise action has been taken."
[OM, Nov 13, 1945]
In another case, a church worker wrote Robert Pierson in
1975:
Fair minded pastors and conference committees have over the
years been increasingly cognizant of that which is just in a
given situation as against what the church manual says
officially, and have chosen to bypass the church's official
position in favor of that which is just and merciful. [To Robert
Pierson, July 19, 1975]
The correspondent spoke from personal experience. His wife
had deserted him some five years previously and his attempts to
reconcile were consistently rejected. Can the individual remarry
despite the Manual stipulation that both he and his future spouse
[a college teacher] should be disfellowshiped? The case was

considered at the local church, conference, union levels and

additionally reviewed by the secretary of the General Conference,
Clyde Franz. All considered that a remarriage without church
discipline was warranted. [Ben Leach (President of the
Southwestern Union) to F C Webster, Aug 23, 1976]
2. Pacific Union Approach, 1972
In early 1972, the Pacific Union sent its "Report of a
Special Committee Appointed to Develop Guidelines on the Subject
of Divorce, Remarriage and Church Membership" to the General
Conference for evaluation. The "guidelines" idea proved to be an
effective tool to, in effect, modify what many considered the
restrictive provisions of the Manual.
The most conspicuous aspect of the Pacific Union study
involved a broader understanding of "the sin of adultery":
The sin of adultery and the violation of the seventh
commandment is expanded to include "acts of impurity," "sexual
thoughts and desires," and "any practice that tends to excite
them." Patriarchs and Prophets, p 308, and Matthew 5:27-28.
Homosexuality, "indulgence in heavy petting with another
[other than the spouse] short of coitus," "continuous
masturbation on the part of one at the expense of meeting the
needs of the other," as well as the husband "making extreme
demands of his wife at the expense of her conscience as well as
her health," all might come under the definition of fornication
and become a just basis for divorce. Statements from Ellen White
were used in support for some of those expansions. [Pacific Union
Conference, "Report of a Special Committee Appointed to Develop
Guidelines on the Subject of Divorce, Remarriage and Church
Membership," pp 12-13; Patriarchs and prophets, p 308; Adventist
Home, p 124]
3. North American Division Guidelines
In mid-1972, the GC Officers noted that "the observations
received from the field" indicated that the guidelines within the
Church Manual "are too brief and inconclusive." [OM, July 31,
1972] By the next year, the Officers reported that "pastors
urgently want help and counsel on the question of divorce and
remarriage." Clearly there was growing dissatisfaction with a
Manual that had been in effect since 1950 [and except for the
redefinition of "fornication" is basically still in effect]. A
major study committee "composed of administrators, pastors,
sociologists and theologians" was appointed and given the task to
"draw up guidelines on church standards covering questions of
divorce and remarriage for use by pastors who serve in the North
American Division." This appears to be the initial time a woman
was named to such a committee. [OM, Jan 8, 1973]
It became clear that the Pacific Union Conference document

served as the starting point for the committee. The committee

clearly sought a "balance" between the "liberal" and "rigidly
conservative" positions on the divorce issue. NAD President, Neal
Wilson (who would soon become chairman of the committee upon the
retirement of the initial chairman, Theodore Carcich) suggested
the direction of the committee in his handwritten notes taken at
the first meeting of the committee:
Perhaps ultimately enlarge counsel in manual, but in interim
possibly offer guidelines which would reduce the many different
ways cases being handled now. This would pull in extr liberal &
also offer reasonable counsel to avoid extreme rigidity. [Minutes
of Committee on Divorce and Remarriage, March 9, 1973, NCW notes]
Wilson's notes on the May 4 announcement of the forthcoming
June 11 and 12 meetings of the committee provides additional
insight into the issues faced by this committee:
1. Church manual & AH both say divorced & remarried couples
may be accepted into church membership
2. Pastor cannot marry those who had no biblical grounds for
divorce
2a. Should grounds for Biblical divorce be broadened
somewhat (PP 308) "fornication
3. If people remarry they should be disfellowshipped
4. "Guidelines" on how they come back into church
5. Clarification needed on living in adultery--continuing to
commit adultery?
The Pacific Union Conference document, a 1973 White Estate
document "Divorce and Remarriage: As Considered in the Spirit of
Prophecy," and the document by the Drs Williams had been sent to
committee members prior to the meeting. During the meeting
itself, members received the 1949 study by A V Olson, ("The
Divorce Question"). [Minutes of Divorce and Remarriage-Guidelines Committee, June 11 and 12, 1973]
The Pacific Union, the Williams,' Olson and White Estate
documents provided central points of discussion over the two
days. It seems evident that the committee perceived its function
to somehow provide a moderate position that would maintain a
degree of unity on the subject. Minutes reveal: "The committee
concluded that even extreme conservative and liberal positions
were important input and that the committee would strive to reach
a proper balance." [Minutes of Divorce and Remarriage--Guidelines
Committee, June 11 and 12, 1973]
A theological subcommittee was appointed at the meeting "to
provide a Biblical base for the church's position." The primary

result from that subcommittee seems to have been the resulting

expansion of the definition of fornication that would later
appear in Appendix C [discussed previously] of the NAD Guidelines
accepted at the 1976 Annual Council.
The interrelationship between "laws" and "compassion" seems
to have been addressed by the committee that met between 1973 and
1976 and is evident in the "balancing" attempt by the committee.
The Church Manual must be followed and it can be changed only by
world representation at a GC Session. But we have special
problems here in North America. Can we approve "guidelines" and
have within Appendix C certain theological positions that the
Manual did not address? The handwritten notes of Robert Pierson
Committee reveal the dilemma of administrators. Those notes,
either taken at various committee meetings or perhaps planned
remarks he made at meetings, make it clear that Ellen White still
at that time was being used as "law" on the subject of divorce
and remarriage:
Does the passing of time make a moral or immoral act right
or wrong?
Does a person or persons who are truly repentant continue to
do that which needs epenting of?...
Stealing, lying, Sabbath-breaking must stop!
If living with a person not the spouse in God's sight??
Will some persons have to go into the kingdom without church
membership? See Vol 1:215 Does God mean what He says--"Is there
any word from the Lord?"
a. Sp Prophecy--"In the sermon on the Mount Jesus declared
plainly that there could be no dissolution of the marriage tie,
except for unfaithfulness to the marriage vow." MB 63 [Also
quotes from AH340]
Death and adultery only grounds of divorce and remarriage
b. Bible--"Everyone that putteth away his wife, saving for
the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress and whosoever
shall marry her thus put away committeth adultery"
c. Church manual--"A guilty spouse, who is divorced, has not
the moral right to marry another while the innocent spouse still
lives and remains unmarried and chaste" [p 254]
How does a person or a couple who have gotten themselves
into marital problems and unscriptural marriages get themselves
out of this unfortunate situation and find salvation? Same as any
other sinner? Different procedure? [Undated page of Pierson notes
with minutes of PREXAD: Special Meeting to Study Divorce and
Remarriage, June 28, 1976]

As previously discussed, the 1976 Annual Council passed the

NAD document "Divorce, Remarriage and Church Membership."
Although the Appendix C section clearly modified the Church
Manual definition of fornication, church leadership sought to
avoid the assumption that SDA standards were being compromised.
After the Council action, PREXAD took this action:
Agreed To ask N C Wilson to write articles for the Review
and Herald and NAD union papers giving our believers background
and rationale for the Annual Council action on Divorce and
Remarriage. These articles should clearly state that the action
does not change the Church Manual in any way but is a plan for
the implementation of Church Manual provisions. Copies of these
articles should be furnished to the division presidents so that
they can adapt them for use in division papers. [PREXAD Minutes,
Oct 26, 1976, emphasis supplied]
4. Loma Linda University Church, 1981
The Loma Linda University Church, by 1981, had been working
for over 18 months on a document "relative to the practical
application of the 1976 and 1977 Annual Council approved
guidelines." When the Southeastern California Conference and
Pacific Union sought GC counsel regarding the proposed document,
another Divorce and Remarriage Committee became established.
[Lowell Bock (Chairman of Divorce and Remarriage Committee) to
Committee Members, July 22, 1981]
The Loma Linda document addressed a number of items it
considered flawed in current policy. Among them: the first party
in a divorce to remarry was usually judged guilty of adultery and
thus disfellowshiped; the church usually remained silent during
early stages of a divorce while a home was undergoing trauma, but
acted to disfellowship only after a legally sanctioned
remarriage; current practice pitted the two partners against each
other since it required that guilt and innocence be identified.
[Loma Linda University Church, "Guidelines Regarding Marriage and
Divorce," Jan, 1982 version]
A major (and controversial) element in the Loma Linda
Guidelines involved what it termed "affiliate membership." When
the dissolution of a marriage seemed a real possibility, the
couple should apply for affiliate church membership, "still
members of the visible body of Christ but acknowledging that
their marriage, at this time, is not fully representative of the
Church's commitment to the permanence of the marriage
relationship." This request would bring all the facilities of the
church to bear in an effort to "heal, if possible, the
estrangement." A rejection of the provision on the part of one
spouse would evidence "no desire for continuing church
membership." The remaining spouse would still for "at least a
brief period" remain an affiliate member in the belief that it
would "contribute to the healing process." After "sufficient time

has elapsed following the divorce to allow for emotional healing"

the affiliate member could be restored to regular membership and
experience "all of the privileges and responsibilities of any
member of the Church." Besides involving the Church in the
initial stages of an estrangement, the Loma Linda approach would
obviate the theologically questionable need for rebaptism.
A major contribution of the Loma Linda document involved its
"Appendix B: The Basis for Church Guidelines on Marriage and
Divorce," and "Appendix C: Church Membership, Marriage and
Divorce." Because its approach to Scripture did not contain the
assumptions of earlier Church Manual approaches, it is
extensively quoted here:
Only Scriptural ground is safe ground when it comes to the
establishment of Church policy. It must be recognized, however,
that the timeless value of Scripture is due to the fact that it
sets forth principles for the guidance of the Church and only a
small body of specific directives. These principles must be
searched out by careful study. Inasmuch as a geographical,
cultural and language gap exists between the modern Church and
the events recorded in Scripture, sound principles of
interpretation require that the Biblical statements by understood
first in their historical setting as far as possible. Only then
can applications of the permanent principles thus disclosed be
properly made to today's situation. The following is a brief
assessment of passages pertinent to the subject of marriage and
divorce....
3. According to Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, Jesus allowed divorce
in the case of porneia. Though, as used generally in the New
Testament, the term involves the concept of sexual immorality;
its precise meaning in the Matthean texts is uncertain....From
what [Christ] said and what the New Testament teaches, it can be
affirmed that God's purpose in Creation is the ultimate issue
rather than a married person's moral failure. Even in the case of
sexual indiscretion, married couples should seek to maintain
God's original purpose in Creation through the reconciling power
of God in recreation.
4. Specific cases addressed by Jesus provide little
additional light on the problem. In talking with the woman taken
in adultery Jesus said with compassion, 'neither do I condemn
thee; go and sin no more.' (John 8:11). He forgave her sin of
adultery, and His acceptance of her made possible a healing
process, but His words contain few clues as to how He would have
handled the thorny questions of divorce except that He would have
handled them with the utmost graciousness and compassion.
5. The accommodations of Paul were directed largely towards
the marital stress caused by the spread of Christianity into a
pagan culture creating rifts in pagan homes. Under Roman law the
rights of women were far better protected than under Jewish law.
For these reasons and others Paul's counsels differ from those of

Moses. (1 Cor 7:15)....

Appendix C: Church Membership, Marriage and Divorce
It will be seen from the Biblical data that the Divine ideal
on marriage is stressed and the dissolution of the home
discouraged. However, it will also be noted that little counsel
is given to the Church in the form of guidelines and directives
on dealing in a redemptive manner with members who have become
involved in a divorce. Thus, the Church in any age must involve
itself in the essential task of interpreting and applying
Biblical principles to specific situations. It does so believing
that it acts under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as promised by
Christ in Matt 16. While it is necessary for the Church to
respond redemptively to the marital disintegration that is now so
evident both in society in general and the Church in particular,
why should that response involve modification of church
membership status?...
3. The Church is obliged to marshal all its forces in
support of the indissolubility of marriage and the fundamental
importance of the family as a preparation for becoming a member
of the family of God. The Church is also committed to act
redemptively towards its communicants. These guidelines seek to
enable the Church to fulfill its responsibility and mission in
both witness and healing. [Loma Linda University Church,
"Guidelines Regarding Marriage and Divorce," Jan, 1982, emphasis
supplied]
5. Kettering, Ohio, SDA Church, 1993
Another local church used the "guidelines" approach in 1993
to implement its understanding of Scriptural counsel on divorce,
remarriage and church membership. It observed that SDAs "have
tended to concentrate on sexual adultery as the sole
justification for divorce." Yet, "we have ignored to our
detriment other elements equally destructive to the marriage
relationship." It addressed the Manual demand that automatically
disfellowshiped or censured adulterous members "without apparent
recognition of their evident repentant attitude." Such a practice
"appears to make the statement that policy is more important than
persons." It challenged: "Though the Seventh-day Adventist Church
calls for censure or disfellowshipment in the case of divorce or
remarriage, this practice is not necessarily Biblical."
Kettering, as did Loma Linda, published a "Theology of Marriage,
Divorce and Remarriage." Its study exhibits a broader
understanding of the concept of "adultery":
Theology of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage
Marriage is a covenant: In Scripture there is one basis for
all relationships and that is "covenant." A covenant is both an
agreement of terms between two people and a promise of love,
support, presence and understanding (Exodus 20:1-17). A covenant
is built by faith or truth. Trust implies openness and honesty so

that each person has the other's best interest at heart. Each
commits to work together for the growth of the relationship.
Marriage is an illustration of the covenantal relationship
with God. Therefore, while sexual union and procreation are a
significant component of the marriage relationship, it is not the
foundation. Consequently, it is only the withdrawal of basic
commitment which can destroy a marriage....
Marriage is for life:...When one has been abandoned
emotionally and/or physically, with no viable possibility of
restoration, then that individual is free to acknowledge the
death of the relationship. Divorce is the accepted way of ending
a dead marriage.
Violation of the marriage vow:...Rather than dogmatically
applying the principle of marriage forever, no matter what the
circumstances, there must be a realistic view of sin and its
destructiveness within the marriage relationship. This implies a
moral reasoning with regard to specific situations. One must ask
what would be most in harmony with God's ideal....
A marriage becomes destructive, and subject to divorce, when
either partner chooses not to be in a committed relationship or
when one's behavior continues without regard for the other
person. In this way the covenant becomes inoperative.
Adultery is the only "grounds" or rationale given in the
Scriptures to justify divorce. We have traditionally understood
adultery as fornication, but is that the correct theological
understanding of adultery? Adultery is parallel with idolatry in
Biblical language (Ezekiel 6:9) and both mean to destroy a
relationship by withdrawing one's commitment and prioritizing
someone or something else into one's life. When a relationship
has been "adulterated" in such a manner, divorce is the way of
recognizing the death of the relationship. God used divorce as a
way of recognizing the reality of Israel's broken covenant (Jer
3:6-8).
Remarriage: Once it is determined that a viable marriage no
longer exists, there is nothing in the Scriptures indicating one
may never remarry. There are cautions against remarriage due to
the potential of repeating the same behaviors in the same
destructive way in the new relationship, but there is not a
universal prohibition against remarriage (1 Cor 7:15).
[Kettering, Ohio, SDA Church, "'Guidelines on Divorce and
Remarriage' for the Seventh-day Adventist Church at Kettering,"
August, 1993]
6. James Coffin Review Article, 1997
James Coffin, pastor of the Markham Woods SDA Church in
Orlando, Florida, recently published a highly significant article
in the general church paper of SDAs. Its very title: "The Long

Shadows of Divorce: Another Look at Divorce and Church Policy,"

challenged the policy as defined within the Church Manual.
"Pastors and church boards" have "increasingly ignored" the
policy since many feel "it oversimplifies an extremely complex
problem." Coffin observed that "Adventist theology and policy
focus almost exclusively on Christ's remarriage prohibition and
not enough on Paul's obligations-within-marriage admonition." He
raised the crucial question whether Jesus was establishing a law
for divorce or whether He sought to point toward the "joy,
fulfillment, and unflagging commitment that God designed for
marriage." [Coffin, RH, August, 1997]
The fact that Coffin's article was published in the general
church paper (although within its NAD edition) provides telling
evidence that policy on divorce and remarriage within the current
Church Manual, almost all of which was written in 1950, has been
inadequate for some years. Coffin concludes:
Our all-but-total focus on the sexual-fidelity component of
marriage has led to another sad scenario. In cases in which
divorce is for reasons other than adultery, church policy says
that each partner's right to remarry is based solely on the
marital/sexual-behavior status of the other.
What results is a pitiful game of "Let's see who can refrain
from marriage/sex the longest." The one who gives in first
automatically becomes the "guilty party," and the other person is
free to marry without fear of ecclesiastical retribution. The
divorced couple's relative contribution to the original marital
breakup is no longer even a part of the equation.
It makes no difference that the man beat his wife daily--at
least he never committed adultery!...
My intention is not to open the door for easy divorce;
rather it is to highlight the practical problems in administering
our current policy. I hope we would all take far more seriously
the covenant to which we commit ourselves at marriage. Just being
against remarriage isn't enough. Just being against divorce isn't
enough. We need to be decidedly pro-marriage in all its aspects.
We must realize that simply abstaining from sexual
relationships with others doesn't fulfill the marriage covenant.
And we also must recognize that at some point, ignoring our
promise to have, hold, love, honor, and cherish must be
considered as much a violation of the marriage vow as ignoring
our obligation to sexual fidelity. [Ibid]
Conclusion
The SDA Church Manuals since the 1930s, all
based upon the premise that both Jesus and Ellen
established laws for divorce and remarriage. And
after the first, seemed to work largely from the

appear to be
White
each manual,
text of previous

manuals while making modifications. Given the questionable

theological premise taken as a starting point, this reviewer
believes a call "back to our future" seems warranted. Ellen White
clearly pointed us to that future even as she expressed awareness
of the dilemma between law and compassion: "I am fearful to
sanction sin, and I am fearful to let go of the sinner and make
no effort to restore him." She looked to our church and hoped
that we would become "more fully imbued with the Spirit of
Christ," and obtain a spiritual power that would "restore the
erring." She pleaded, "If we err, let it be on the side of mercy
rather than on the side of condemnation and harsh dealing."
[Letter 16, 1887, TSB, p 242]