RELIGIOUS WORLD.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 307, 28 December 1929, Page 2 (Supplement)

RELIGIOUS WORLD.

PRESENT-DAY OUTLOOK.

(Contributed.) MARRIAGE AS SOCIAL OBLIGATION. DR. SELWYN ON EVILS OF DIVORCE.

In the course of "Some Reflections on Modern Divorce," which he contributes to the September number of the monthly journal, "Mothers in Council," Dr. Selwyn says:— "In a country of the type of America, where the population is rich, individualistic, and largely Protestant, or without any religious allegiance, a civil marriage law in conformity with the Christian law is not practical politics, if marriage depends for its success and fruitfuTness (like every other relationship in life) upon the co-operating forces of moral endeavour and the grace of God, we cannot expect that, where these forces are absent, the Christian standard can be maintained. Far the strongest force making for the preservation of marriage in America to-day is the Roman Catholic Church —the figures of divorce among Roman Catholics aie almost negligible. The Episcopal Church, too (though its marriage canon is far from satisfactory), is on the same side. Both of them exercise an effective discipline over their, own members, and so fulfil a great sociological function in the national life. But, even together, they are not in a position to claim that the Christian law can be imposed upon the millions who know no Christian motive, discipline or faith. "No doubt many qualifications have $0 be made before we can'say that this is true also of our own country. We are a far more unified peoplethan America; responsive, in a sense unknown there, to a single public opinion, and, influenced in a thousand ways by religious tradition and long-standing custom. But, even so/ it is undeniable that large sections of our people are outside any Christian influence, and frankly selfish and secular in their outlook. That is every reason why we should be uncompromising in our insistence on the Christian law for Christians. But it is also a reason for recognising that the attempt to impose it on non-Christians jsannot succeed.

A Duty to Society. "If, that, however, the end of the matter? Does our responsibility end there? • Surely not. We have a duty to society, even when Ave cannot get society to go all the way with us. . . We must insist, the essence of marriage, as Count Keyserling has pointed out. is that it is a social contract, involving many other relationships and duties beyond the 'needs and desires' of the parties themselyes. The vast majority of unsuccessful marriages, it is safe to say, go wrong because marriage is being regarded as a purely selfish affair, with which the rest of the world has no concern. Marriage is thus one of the chief battle grounds between the selfish and the eocial attitude to life.- Where the social aspect of marriage is kept to the fore, there, even if religious faith be absent, a strong motive will be found for the moral effort needed to make it a success. And such motive is obviously fortified if the married state is one that is legally difficult to dissolve. ...

"The great work of the Mothers' Union in regard to marriage will always be that of witness and of education; and too much can never be done to impress upon clergy and teachers the need of constant and positive instruction upon ■what marriage is, and in what spirit it should be approached. But there is also around us a growing volume of public opinion which is shocked at the working of the existing divorce laws, simply from the standpoint of citizenship; and it is greatly to be desired that that opinion may be guided and influenced to right judgment and a wise policy those whose ideals of marriage are frankly and unreservedly Christian. We have got to keep the Church's discipline firm without exception, but, where that ig already discarded, we need also to try and make the civil law,, even though it falls below the Christian standard, as .just, decent and humane as we can."