CHURCH AND DIVORCE

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 13, 15 July 1937, Page 11

CHURCH AND DIVORCE

PRESBYTERIAN VIEWS

'•HISTORICAL ATTITUDE"

REAFFIRMED

I (Special to the "Evening Post."; CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. A discussion on the remarriage of divorced persons, by the Christchurch Presbytery "yesterday, resulted in the confirmation of its position, which is in conformity with the historical attitude of the Presbyterian Church. A statement was submitted by the Rev T W. Armour (for the Life and Work Committee), and was approved, ! only one member dissenting. me Moderator, the Rev. J. Lawson Robinson, presided. . The statement reads: "All ministers who are requested to marry divorced persons are required to exercise great care lest they join together those whose marriage the Church cannot approve. The Presbytery reaffirms the historical position of this and other Presbyterian Churches that divorce is allowable, on scriptural grounds, only where there has been adultery or wilful and continued desertion, in which case the marriage is, de facto, already broken and ended. A minister is free, if he should be so minded, to marry the innocent party to such a divorce; but the remarriage shall not take place until the period of one year shall have elapsed from the date of the decision allowing the divorce. "It is eminently desirable that all decrees of divorce should state explicitly the grounds of the judgment and, until this is the practice of the law courts, ministers shall requne a declaration, counter-signed by tie solicitor who has acted for the applicant in the divorce proceedings that the grounds of the judgment are as stated or other satisfactory evidence o S same effect." the statement adds. "In all cases where there is doubt as to the propriety of the V^ed remarriage, ministers shall seek the quid "nee of the Presbytery through a special committee appointed foi the PL The Smatter had arisen, Mr. Armour Jd because the laws of the State and of the Church did not run parallel. In 1922 a law passed in the Dominions!lowed divorce on the ground of mutual consent after three years' sepaia on. There were cases where persons preSed somewhat pitiful stories and whore the facts were not cleai tne mSster might be tempted lo g.vc them the benefit of the doubt It was felt, he added, that mere =hmilrl be a redefinition of the Church's attitude to secure harmony of practices among other Churches. A

over divorce, he said alone, seek ,lhe direction of his Pics bytcry.

STATEMENT OPPOSED. "I think it is absolutely unscriptural for this Church to countenance d!vorce" the -Rev. T. Paterson said. X Christian marriage is absolute y indissoluble. There is no innocent parlj in a divorce. Both are full of iauHs. I am criticising this Church m that il is willing to bless unions which should not be countenanced." Marriages were made, sometimes, through parents wishing to avoid a scandal, where inhibitions and hindrances made them foreign to Christian marriages, he said. These mamages were not marriages, and the homes made were not homes/ The only marriage to be recognised was where the two persons mutually wished to marry, and where, in accord with Christianity, only death ended the tie. "I submit that there is only one way to deal with the position," he added. "In these days we must emphasise anew the sacredncss of the home and the sacredness of marriage. I protest against the finding of this Presbytery, and I will stand by my protest." The Rev. J. Johnston suggested an amendment including incurable insanity and life sentence through the courts as grounds for divorce. The recommendation was not seconded, and lapsed. The Rev. E. Swinerd: There are no words in the Scripture allowing divorce except for one thing, adultery or infidelity.

The Rev. L. McMastcrs said he thought Mr. Paterson's conception too idealist, not allowing for human nature. The Presbytery's statement was too rigid. . "Conditions today are very different from those for which the Scripture once applied," he said. "We are no longer living in those conditions. We are no longer under Jewish law."

Replying to the Presbytery's statement, Mr. Armour questioned the common sense and scholarship behind an attitude such as that expressed by Mr. Paterson.

Mr. Paterson: I object to that. It's impertinent.

The statement was approved, Mr Paterson voting against its adoption.