Quote:
Originally Posted by DAII
...
This is a matter of precedence.
|
Since we don't really know what happened at "the pool incident" and probably never will, on a going forward basis, the only real question that arises is the propriety of remarriage in this and similar cases.
It has been reported that the gentleman seeking to remarry was NOT the one to file for divorce - in spite of the speculated "grounds" that have been offered. His ex clearly was looking for a lifestyle outside of the "Apostolic/Pentecostal" realm of standards and such. Thus,
he is "a victim of divorce."
The UPCI Manual and the AoF on this matter have always been understood and interpreted as saying that the "victim of a divorce" can remarry - but "only in the Lord." There really has never been a need to "prove" that an actual act of "adultery" took place. It is enough that the man was served with papers and left standing out in the rain.
There has already been a ton of precedence for this. It's no big deal, in the long run. This one guy just sort of flubbed his handling of the thing and got zapped for a half a million dollars because he wanted to "prove" something that he didn't even need to prove.
Threaded Mode
