CHURCH AND DIVORCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 251, 22 October 1924, Page 7

CHURCH AND DIVORCE.

MATTER OF INTERPRETATION , . 3 BISHOP AVERILL-S VIEWS.' * >■ ■ • -dj On the resumption of the debate at" '■ the Diocesan Synod yesterday concern- •> ! ing the prevalency of divorce in Nc* f Zealand, and the need for «-lear tcoch> i ing regarding Christian marriage, the' 1 Bishop (Dr. Ayerill) ■ reminded those present that at the last meeting of j General Synod held in St. Mary's Hall, a resolution was moved by him, associating the Church of the Province of New Zealand with the resolution of the Lambeth Conference concerning the matter.- While the Church in New Zealand had affirmed the opinion of the Lambeth Conference regarding Our Lord's teaching, it should be realised that all the people in New Zealand •β-ere not Christians, said Dr. AverflL The Government had to legislate, not I only for those who professed and called , themselves Christians, but for the whole community, continued the Bishop: It ; had also to be remembered that the Lambeth Conference had left it to the various regional churches to put whatI ever construction they thought fit on I the words of Christ in St. Matthew's I Gospel,, regarding the one exception to I a life-long union between one man and j one woman. The Primate had been j requested to appoint a lecess committee to consider questions affecting the subject, and to report to the next General Synod. It was too big a question to be discussed in m hurry. The Church in New Zealand was bound to take full knowledge of Christ's teaching, and the one exception. While Dr. Averill wa« deeply distressed by the laxity of morale in this country, it had to be remembered that there were divergent interpretations of Christ's words. No body of scholars bad been unanimous on his meaning. Personally, said Dr. Averill, his mind leaned toward* the belief that the exception referred only to the Jews, having reference to. antenuptial sin, and hot post nuptial sin. This was very different from what was understood to-day as divorce. The Gospel seemed to indicate thai only a husband who had been deceived prior to marriage could put his wife away. However; the real meaning of His'teaching should be ascertained if possible. The law of the Church, in New Zealand that divorced people were not to be re-married was in accord with Christ's teaching. In many cases Bishop Averill would welcome the opportunity to re- . : marry the really innocent party, but it could never be in face of the -teaching of Christ. If it could be sliawrj that Christ had not taught that re-marriage was wrong, the Church would be glad to re-marry people. lay people should not misunderstand the attitude o,f' the clergy. It was not a mere rule pf the Church but the very plain teaching of Christ, The resolution waa- carried irnanl? mously.