Dr. Kent Hovind SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT- I'm getting married!

I watched some of his video. When she said she knew him “pretty good”, it confirmed my suspicions. I wonder what the Bee will do with this example of foolishness.

He’s got a 28 minute video out responding to critics of his marriage video.

One would wonder what it would take before Hovind realizes that he’s not fit for the ministry anymore, and what it will take before his followers will walk away from him. Apparently divorce, hasty remarriage (if the divorce is even final yet), incarceration, and a bevy of other improprieties with his “ministry” is not enough.

Taking the person and all his surrounding issues out of it, the issue here doesn’t seem all that difficult if he is telling the truth.

His wife left him against his desire and in spite of his appeal. Under 1 Cor 7:15, he is not bound. There is some debate about what he is not bound to, but it is most reasonable that he is not bound to the marriage. He is free. Couple that with the command that it is better to marry than to burn (1 Cor 7:9) and the instruction that one who has been released from a wife is not sinning if he marries (1 Cor 7:28-29), it seems that he is within the biblical framework for marriage. He may not be within the biblical framework of requirements for ministry (for a variety of reasons including this one).

None of that is to say he should get remarried or should be in the ministry.

My personal experience with Hovind is that he and the truth are not close friends. He is a master truth bender. It’s one of the reasons he was in jail.

He exercised his authority as a husband to get his wife to assist him in his illegal behavior and she went to jail for this. I would venture the assertion that he likely tried to repeat this and she might have refused to “submit to his authority” resulting in her leaving him. The fact is that she waited for him for around 10 years.

I personally think he is free to remarry though he may want to wait until the divorce is final :) However, I have to say I am crying from laughing so hard at this response to his critics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVrvEDG9tfM

There is so much to laugh at here: the song and musicians, the quality of his video, the insulation on the unfinished walls, etc. But mostly, the irony that he is stabbing his ultra-conservative fans in the back by doing this and then calling them hypocrites and Pharisees.

I can see a future for him selling cars or insurance but as far as his creation stuff goes, this has to be the end of the road.

My personal experience with Hovind is that he and the truth are not close friends. He is a master truth bender. It’s one of the reasons he was in jail.

I don’t have any personal experience and watching a few minutes of that video (I didn’t watch all of it) was all I have ever heard from him. That’s why I prefaced my comments with the desire to take the particular person out of it and just talk about the issue of divorce and remarriage itself.

He exercised his authority as a husband to get his wife to assist him in his illegal behavior and she went to jail for this. I would venture the assertion that he likely tried to repeat this and she might have refused to “submit to his authority” resulting in her leaving him. The fact is that she waited for him for around 10 years.

May well be. I didn’t know that. Of course, I don’t know much about it at all other than it was tax evasion of some sort. And the fact that the woman is marrying is involved in the antivaccine movement doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in her judgment either.

GregH, I hope you’re right and he’s done, but I’m (admittedly cynically) guessing that the same crowd that overlooked Hovind’s other issues is going to overlook this, too. He’ll be limping on and embarrassing us for a while.

Your comment on his marriage being perhaps plausibly Biblical also raises a question for me; does our acceptance of a second marriage in a believer (if Hovind is a believer—I’ve got my doubts) depend at a certain point on the circumstances of the ending of the first? I would tend to say that it does. Person is “traded in on a younger model” and there is clear adultery (or perhaps serious abuse/abandonment), that’s one thing. Abuser/abandoner/adulterer? There’s another—you want to step in if only to protect the intended second spouse.

I tend to think Hovind is closer to the latter category from the evidence around him, though I can’t prove it thoroughly.

[Bert Perry]

GregH, I hope you’re right and he’s done, but I’m (admittedly cynically) guessing that the same crowd that overlooked Hovind’s other issues is going to overlook this, too. He’ll be limping on and embarrassing us for a while.

Your comment on his marriage being perhaps plausibly Biblical also raises a question for me; does our acceptance of a second marriage in a believer (if Hovind is a believer—I’ve got my doubts) depend at a certain point on the circumstances of the ending of the first? I would tend to say that it does. Person is “traded in on a younger model” and there is clear adultery (or perhaps serious abuse/abandonment), that’s one thing. Abuser/abandoner/adulterer? There’s another—you want to step in if only to protect the intended second spouse.

I tend to think Hovind is closer to the latter category from the evidence around him, though I can’t prove it thoroughly.

I believe that if someone is divorced for Biblical acceptable reasons, it is by default Biblically acceptable for them to remarry. If he was “abandoned,” yes I think he can remarry.

1. They deserve each other.

2. It’ll end in divorce, because I’m sure he’s crazier than she is they rushed into this.

No, really, who? Why (oh why) is this “news?”

[SamH]

No, really, who? Why (oh why) is this “news?”

Big news, maybe or maybe not, but it’s worth noting here because it shows “our tribe” who we are; people who will sometimes overlook some pretty nasty character traits in a man when we want to see him in a pulpit.

I get that. Sat in on his lectures years ago in metro Detroit area. If he were still, as you put it “a player in YE Creationism” and had made some significant statement or written some significant article, or admitted his guilt or the like, that seems like something worth reporting. But as you said he “has been” which is different than “is.” But I am wasting bytes here, so I will stop curmudgeoning…