CHURCH AND DIVORCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 103, 3 May 1922, Page 8

CHURCH AND DIVORCE.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND CRITICISM. REMARRIAGE NOT RECOGNISED. The laws of divorce, and their conflict with the teaching s of the Bible was the subject :if :i debate at the Anglican Synod yesterday evening, when Bishop Averill. of Auckland, moved: '"That the Synod associate itself with resolution t>7 of the Lambeth Conference, ID2O, to the following effect: "The Conference affirms as our Lord's principle and standard of marriage, a lifelong and indissoluble union, for better for worse, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, and calls on all Christian people to maintain and bear witness to this standard. 'Hie Conference, while fully recognising the extreme difficulty of Governments in framing marriage laws for citizens, many of whom do not accept the Christian standard, expresses its firm belief that in every country the Church should be free to bear witness to that standard through its powers of administration and discipline exercised in relation to its own members.' " At Bishop Averill's request the following clause was added to his motion: "In view of the fact that the Conference admits the right of a national or regional church within our communion to deal with cases which fall within the exception mentioned in the record of our Lord's Word in St. Matthew's gospel under provisions which such church may lay down, the Most Reverend the Primate be respectfully requested to appoint a recess committee to consider the matter fully and report to the next session of Synod " Explaining the proposed addition, his Lordship expressed the opinion that in two or three years scholars would come to more definite conclusions than at present. NO SUCH THING AS DIVORCE. The Lambeth Conference had affirmed the principle that there could be no such thing as divorce, and the attitude of the Church in New Zealand was the same as in the. Church in England, namely, that re-marriage was not. recognised. The controversy, however, revolved round the difficult position of the so-called innocent party and the Church's attitude depended on the interpretation to be placed on the passage in the gospel of St. Matthew, where fornication was mentioned as an exception to the Lord's definition of adultery. No interpretation was placed on this important question by the Conference, and this left it open for the New Zealand Church to put its own interpretation on it. Thus it was poosible to amend our custom as to allow re-mar-ringe in our Church if we think fit. The gospel of St. Mark, containing a simple teaching of Christ's words, did not contain n word about divorce, continued the Bishop. Reviewing current theories, or Christ teaching on divorce, he shower! that Archbishop Charles maintained that Christ laid it down absolutely and definitely that divorce was not permissible except on the ground of adultery, and that the gospel of St. Matthew was the correct interpretation. Another theory maintained that the gospel of St. Mark contained the right teaching, namely, that Christ did not allow divorce on any ground. Yet another theory, and seemingly a feasible one, held that the exception referred to pre-nuptia] sin. With these conflicting opinions it would bo dangerous to act definitely at present. The Bishop, continuing, said that it would give him the greatest joy and comfort if the Churches had permission to re-roarrv the innocent party. That, he was not ashamed to confess. However, that could not be done until the establishment of the truth that the act of adultery destroyed the bond. Tf that was proved then it would he quite possible for the Church to issue a decree of annulment. The speaker was afraid that the Government would, in framing marriage laws, not legislate merely from the point of view of the Christian. The State was not a Christian State, and all conditions of men were admitted to citizenship. Bishop Averill said that j they, must make sure that Christian principles were recocnised by the State ac far as was possible. Tn teachins the words of Jesus Christ the Church should not have to bear burdens imposed by the State. "LEGISLATION A DISGRACE." The legislation of divorce, said the Bishop, that woe , recently passed by Par- j liament was a disgrace. They had to see that the State did not stop the Church from standing up to its ideal. If the r State made the Church do what it. be- r lieved to be against its conscience, then he believed that it was their duty to resist the State. Tho motion was seconded by Bishop Sprott, who stated that the Lord's teaching on marriage was not systematic, but was given in answer to questions. After further remarks by Bishop Sprott dealing with the functions of the State and Church the discussion was adjourned.