MARRIAGE AFTER DIVORCE

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26263, 7 November 1950, Page 6

MARRIAGE AFTER DIVORCE

PRESBYTERIAN VIEW ALTERED PRINCIPLES APPROVED BY ASSEMBLY (Ntw Zealand Prate xssoeiattenj AUCKLAND, November «. The Presbyterian General Assembly to-day affirmed that marriage instituted it is a life-long union of one man with one woman, such that ’he breakingof it is against God s natural order. The assembly decided to recognise, however, that the union in some cases is completely destroyed, and it will now acknowledge the fact that divorce has been in these circumstances the only remedy of an intolerable situation. The statement of the church s atti* tude added that in the face of the increasing tendency to approve of divorce on trivial and insufficient grounds it Should be clearly understood that the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand holds that divorce should be retorted to only after repeated and sincere attempts at reconciliation have been made and failed. “This declaration does not imply, the statement continued, "that ministers of the church must agree to remarry any divorced person who seeks to be remarried. It does mean that ministers are free to remarry a divorced person if they are satisfied thet he or she understands the Christian teaching about marriage and sincerely intends to enter into a true marriage.’’ The assembly approved six guidirg principles for ministers brought befjre it by the committee on doctrine, which prepared the statement. The principles said that ministers should never agree to marry persons from another parish without consulting the other minister. A minister should ask the parties, if strangers to him, if either had been married before a.id whether they were members oi the Presbyterian Church. If neither party was attending any church the minister should emphasise the necessity of using the means of grace if the marriage was to be fully blessed by God, and thu should be emphasised with particular care in the case of divorced persons Presbyteries were recommended to set up committees to which doubtful cas-»s could be referred by the minister for their decision. Statement Commended The Very Rev. G. D. Smith (Auckland) said that the old statement on the church’s attitude to divorce and remarriage sought to try to separate the innocent party from the guilty anti to relate the church’s decision to the law of the land. The church had ex perienced difficulty wdth the old statement because the party who was stated by the law to be innocent was ve.*y often very far from innocent. The former statement was not in line with tne Presbyterian gospel which was a gospel of grace and second chance. “This statement is far more Christian than the old one. and it enables "the minister to deal with the human situation with which he is confronted,’’ said Mr Smith. “If there is a re«d purpose of heart to live by the Gospel a minister can feel justified in giv’ ;g the blessing of the church." The Rev. J. M. Bates, convener of the committee on doctrine, said theve were cases where the church was being made use of. There was often no evidence of a sincere attempt to make a success of a second marriage. The Rev. O. T. Baragwanath: V/e should realise that the new statement may. place us in a difficult position. People may come to us with a glib tongue and deceive us. I hope we are not going to lose anything of our strong sense of the meaning of holy matrimony.