LAW OF DIVORCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 106, 6 May 1936, Page 18

LAW OF DIVORCE.

CHURCH'S ATTITUDE. DIVERGENT VIEWS TAKEN. CHRISTIAN COUNCIL MEETS. Two distinct views were expressed at the quarterly meeting last night of the Council of Christian Congregations in regard to the Church's attitude about divorce. The Rev. Dr. H.Ranston said that if God's teaching were taken at its face value, then marriage was indissoluble, except on grounds of unchastity. The RevJ E. D. Patchett said that whatever the view of the churchman, the plain man refused to believe that there were not reasons harmonious with the spirit of the Church under which marriage could be dissolved apart from the ground allowed by God. The council as a body did not express an opinion on the matter.

First of all, Mr. R. G. Sellar, honorary solicitor to the council, gave the legal fiide to the law of divorce, tracing Its beginnings and explaining grounds for it to-day, and the way application might be made for it. Dr. Ranston gave the Scriptural teaching in the matter. There were four particular passages in the New Testament, he said, which dealt with divorce. In one of them, he said, scholars were not agreed that the words given were the actual words of God, or whether they were the interpretation of the Church. However, except on that one point, there was no doubt about God's teaching. Marriage was not able to be dissolved. "There are a good many people favouring the view that there should be a way out of marriage if it is intolerable," he added. In God's view there was only one ground—unchastity —and even then it was not certain that He made that one concession. The standard of morality of the Church, he thought, should be higher than that demanded by the State. Whatever the State said, the Church ought to stand by tiie teaching of God. Dr. J. J. North said that St. Paul allowed divorce in the caee of mixed marriages; and the apostle did not believe in the fierce application of God's law.

"The question is very important in its reaction on the Church itself," said Mr. Patchett. Whatever the churchman thought, the plain man refused to believe that there were not serious reasons, harmonious with the teachings of the Church, why marriage should be dissolved apart from the one mentioned by God. He mentioned a possible case where a man might pass on a horrible disease to his wife. "These are ways in which men are thinking to-day," he added. "Whatever churchmen might, say the plain man was not going to accept the narrow view." The Church would have to try and see how the matter could bo settled according to the spirit of God,