As per #1, the focus of this discussion is "ONLY" upon my book, your critical review, and my rebuttals. Additionally, neither of us are to introduce any other materials which we have written. There was a point to that, of course. The discussion could easily be drawn away from the book itself, and our discussion would then deteriorate to a debate upon matters or statements outside the book. You had also made some statements in your bulletin (prior to our agreement to enter this discussion) about which I wrote to you privately and challenged. Indeed, I believe I had demonstrated in my private posts to you that some of your statements in your bulletin were not correct. I think this too may have been one reason you did not want any other materials introduced into this discussion. That would prevent me from quoting what you had written there and challenging it in the context of this discussion. Thus, you insisted that our discussion center "ONLY" on my book, and the statements you believed to be false contained within it, rather than on any other materials or statements either of us may have produced, or would later produce. I agreed to this condition of yours, and will try to abide by it, as I promised to do.

This critical review, to which we both agreed, would be "ONLY" of my book, and we would have the right to comment upon whatever comments we made to one another during the course of this discussion. Such a practice is even standard in a court of law with lawyers. A lawyer will receive an objection from the opposing lawyer (and it will be sustained by the judge) if he tries to introduce evidence which is outside the parameters of prior disclosure.

We have already agreed to conditions limiting what may and may not be introduced into this discussion as "evidence." And, I might add, these conditions were YOUR idea, and were written by YOU, and I was told that the discussion could not take place unless I agreed to them .... and, further, that the discussion would be terminated if I violated them.

Thus, I think it best to abide by your conditions and refrain from answering your questions at this time. AFTER the discussion, I would be happy to answer them for you, either in private or in public. However, I think that in the course of our discussion you and the readers will find that these questions will be answered anyway, just as a natural part of our exchange .... especially when we get into the teaching of Jesus Christ. So, I would just urge patience. The answers will be forthcoming in the discussion anyway, I'm sure.

I am receiving quite a bit of e-mail regarding our discussion. It is generating quite a lot of interest across the country. Just yesterday, in our worship assembly, a visitor from Texas came up to me and asked when the next exchange between us was going to be placed on my web page!! For the EGHhelp members' info: this discussion is now also being displayed on my web site. You can find it at:

http://www.zianet.com/maxey/maxbrok.htm

I also received an e-mail from a preacher who lives not far from you, Darrell (in VA), who says he too is following this discussion with a lot of interest (he says he doesn't personally know you, but has heard of you). I think this has the potential of doing much good if we will stay with it, and if we will maintain the proper spirit and keep it scholarly.

I look forward to your next post, brother .... as do so many others. May God richly bless you this week.

With Christian Love,

• Al Maxey

From: Broking --- broking@hroads.net
Date: Monday, May 29, 2000 10:02 a.m.
Subject: Maxey-Broking Discussion

Al wrote: "While I would normally have no problem at all in responding to your questions, Darrell, I believe that in this special case they would be a violation of our prior agreement to the conditions of this discussion. Notice the following two conditions which you composed and insisted I agree to before you would discuss my book ...."

Al, you did not have any problem asking to change our agreement about the sources in which this discussion would be published. In fact, when I was unable to answer your request in a speedy fashion, you informed me that you were going ahead and linking the discussion to your page anyway. I wonder why you are opposed to answering these questions at this time?

Al wrote: "As per #1, the focus of this discussion is 'ONLY' upon my book, your critical review, and my rebuttals."

The questions are in regard to your rebuttal. In your last rebuttal you worked hard to avoid commenting on the import of questions 1 and 2, even though they are directly related to your material. The questions I asked you were intended to help clear the fog from your last rebuttal.

Al wrote: "Additionally, neither of us are to introduce any other materials which we have written. You had also made some statements in your bulletin (prior to our agreement to enter this discussion) which I wrote to you privately and challenged. Indeed, I believe I had demonstrated in my private posts to you that some of your statements in your bulletin were not correct. I think this too may have been one reason you did not want any other materials introduced into this discussion. That would prevent me from quoting what you had written there and challenging it in the context of this discussion. Thus, you insisted that our discussion center 'ONLY' on my book, and the statements you believed to be false contained within it, rather than on any other materials or statements either of us may have produced, or would later produce."

Al, let me point out here that you don't have a problem introducing my bulletin material in a general way, and stating that you demonstrated statements in my bulletin to be incorrect. Which violates our agreement: answering questions which bear on your rebuttal, or bringing up my bulletin articles? Al, you have an excellent ability to cloud up an issue when it gets to the heart of the matter.

Al wrote: "I agreed to this condition of yours, and will try to abide by it, as I promised to do."

Funny how you will try to abide by select sections of our agreement.

Al wrote: "Thus, I think it best to abide by your conditions and refrain from answering your questions at this time. AFTER the discussion, I would be happy to answer them for you, either in private or in public."

Al, when we finish this discussion, I plan on being totally finished with it.

• Darrell Broking

From: Maxey --- maxey@zianet.com
Date: Monday, May 29, 2000 12:27 p.m.
Subject: Re: Maxey-Broking Discussion

Good Morning Darrell,

You wrote: "In your last rebuttal you worked hard to avoid commenting on the import of questions 1 and 2, even though they are directly related to your material. The questions I asked you were intended to help clear the fog from your last rebuttal."

I don't think there was any "fog" to clear. You alleged that "Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is used as a pattern for Jesus' doctrine of marriage, divorce and remarriage." I stated very clearly and simply that I do NOT believe that, and then I gave several quotes from my book which PROVE that I do not believe that. I believe that I *cleared* the fog in my rebuttal. If you believe that in my book I teach that Jesus DOES base His teaching on the Deut. 24 passage, then all you need to do is "produce the evidence." Produce the quotes which you believe teach that position, and I will deal with them in a rebuttal.

You wrote: "Al, let me point out here that you don't have a problem introducing my bulletin material in a general way, and stating that you demonstrated statements in my bulletin to be incorrect. Which violates our agreement: answering questions which bear on your rebuttal, or bringing up my bulletin articles?"

Darrell, I don't consider our current exchange a part of the "official" Maxey-Broking Discussion. None of what we have exchanged here today will be put on my web page. It is not a part of the discussion, in my opinion. It is just a side exchange among the participants about some of the terms of the agreement, and has no bearing on the actual published discussion itself. You sought additional information of me (additional to what is in my book), and I declined, as per our "conditions." I only brought up the bulletin articles in my reply to you to try and demonstrate why I believe there is validity to both of our views as to this condition of no additional materials being introduced. This was to be "ONLY" (your words) a review of my book, and no other materials by either of us. I'm simply trying to honor that. My reference to your articles will never appear in the discussion itself, just as none of these posts will. They are not a part of the discussion. I would love to refer to some of the things you said in your bulletin articles! Believe me, I would LOVE to!!! But, I won't do that. I agreed not to, and I won't. Reference to them will NEVER appear in our published discussion. Nor will information by either of us outside of the book itself and your review and my rebuttals. I agreed to this condition of yours, and I will honor it.

Darrell wrote: "I wonder why you are opposed to answering these questions at this time?"

The answers to your questions will be fully provided during the course of our published discussion. All things in their proper time, brother. Be patient. All your questions will be answered, but I won't do it outside the parameters of our "official" discussion.

Have a wonderful day, brother, and I look forward to your post #4 in our discussion.

With Christian Love,

• Al Maxey

From: Broking --- broking@hroads.net
Date: Monday, May 29, 2000 12:35 p.m.
Subject: Maxey-Broking Discussion

Al wrote: "Darrell, I don't consider our current exchange a part of the 'official' Maxey-Broking Discussion. None of what we have exchanged here today will be put on my web page. It is not a part of the discussion, in my opinion. It is just a side exchange among the participants about some of the terms of the agreement, and has no bearing on the actual published discussion itself."

Anything publicly posted on the EGH under the heading of the Maxey-Broking Discussion is considered part of the "official" discussion. It is posted here, logged into the public archives. It will run in The Christian Polemic and eventually, if the overall material is profitable, it will be printed in the book. Al, it may be a good idea to let your readership see this part of our exchange too! I was not asking you some side issue questions, and your public response to those questions is important to the content of the Maxey-Broking Discussion. I will look forward to seeing the 4 posts of 5/29/00 on your page too.

• Darrell Broking