CHURCH AND STATE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 247, 13 July 1921, Page 6

CHURCH AND STATE

IDECENT CHANGE IN DIVORCE LAW DIOCESAN SYNOD PROTESTS BISHOP’S STRIKING SPEECH That this Synod views with strong disapproval the extension of the grounds of divorce made by the 1920 amendment of the Divorce Act as being mono subversive of the Christian standard of marriage than any previous legislation on tho subject; that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Acting-Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice The resolution quoted above was yesterday carried unanimously by the Wellington Diocesan Synod, after a debate to which Bishop Sprott contributed a most interesting speech. The mover was the Rev. 0. M. Stent, who said that it. was with a sense of tremendous responsibility that he proposed the motion. The recent Act permitted divorce to take place after three years separation, no matter whether the contracting parties had lived chastely or not; and if that was so, it seemed to him that the standard of marriage laid down in the Word of God was in very grave peril. Tf it was in peril, it behoved every Christian priest and every Christian layman with one voice and one determination to pass the resolution he proposed, and do the utmost possible to bring about a return to the paths of righteousness. A grave crisis has been reached. The amendment practically meant that a couple were permitted—he would not say encouraged, because he did not wish to utter anything bitter or rash—to part company after a space of three years, if they mutually desired to do so. Was this marriage or was it not? If it was not marriage then ho wished to remind his hearers of what they had been, told in tne recent Marriage Amendment Act: "Every person commits an offence against this Act, and is liable on summary conviction Fo a fine of £lOO, who alleges, expressly or by implication, that any persona lawfully married are not truly and sufficiently married.” Did the law of this country override tho law of God? That was the question the Synod must face. Mr. Stent contended that I tue passing of the recent amendment > was inimical to the social well-being of the community. "I would ask any father or any mother who is in this room this afternoon,” ho said, “would ho or she allow a son or daughter to be married under such conditions as this: that they may be cast adrift in the space of three years? There is not one of them that would do so. It Is with very great sorrow, but with a stern sense of duty, that I move the resolution standing in my name." The Court’s Discretion. Mr. H. E. Evans, in seconding the motion, said that the legislation had been passed in the dying hours of a session, nnl. its effect was only now becoming apparent from the decisions of the Courts. This legislation was not merely a matter of pushing open a little wider a door that was already regarded by many as too wide open: it was a revolutionary change tliat bade fair to shake down the whole of tho sanctuary in which tho institution of holy matrimony ought to he enshrined. One respect in which the English divorce law was ahead of the New Zealand law, said Mr. Evans, in discussing the law generally, was that in England a divorce could never be obtained at the instance of the really guilty party. With regard to tho 1920 amendment, nobody had known until lately on what principle the Court would exercise its discretion. Most people had tacitly assumed that moral guilt or moral innocence of the parties would have something, to do with tho matter. This had not proved to be the case. Even before the first important judgment came out, however, close examination of the amendment would have made it clear that the consideration ho had mentioned could not be the dominant one. The principle on which the New Zealand Courts proceeded had recently been laid down. It was in effect as follows:—So long as the circumstances attending the separation or the duration of tho separation satisfied the Court that the. foundation of the marriage had ■ irretrievably gone, and that there was no chance of the parties ever coming together again, tho Court would pronounce a decree. The Rev. W. J. Williams hoped that the Legislature would be compelled by public opinion to repeal the amendment under discussion. The Rev. H. J. Blackburne heartily supported the motion. A Guiding Principle. Mr. E. H. Hadfield was anxious to hear the views of the president of the Synod on the question under discussion. He felt personally that the amendment had gone a great deal too far. and he would have no difficulty in voting for the resolution. But the difficulty for the public and the Legislature and. everybody concerned was to get any indication of a guiding principle. He took it they must nocept the. fact that there was a human nature that was very depraved, and that the Legislature must take the best practical means to "keep it on the rails.” For a Christian philosopher, it was a question only of which ideal was the higher. Functions of Church and State. , . His Lordship the president said he did not think such a resolution should go by without his saying a word or two. He felt, however, that he was not equal fo satisfying the demands of Mr. Hadfield because he did not think anyone had succeeded yet. It might, however, clear up the question somewhat, if they tried tn distinguish the functions of the Church and the State respectively. The Church and tho State both met at one point—that they both claimed to deal with human conduct. It was the function of tho Church to hold up the true ideal of human life and conduct, and to seek fo obtain tho acceptance of that ideal and the effort of men to follow it. not by any thought of external compulsion, but by the awakening of inner reverence for moral law. The State dealt with human conduct from another point of view. Tt dealt with people just ns it found them, because it had no power by which it could work the inner transformation. That was where the tragic ' mistake had been made in the taking over of education by the State—the most i tragic mistake, he supposed, of modern i times. because the State had no method by which it could awaken inner rover- ! ence for moral law. . • . The State dealt only with outward misconduct, and with only certain departments of that. Tho ; State’s sphere of operation was the < failure of the Church. Every police- ; man was an evidence that the Church had not yet succeeded in its function. ; The Christian ideal of marriage was ■ indissolubility. Tho relations between the Church and the State had become greatly compli- | catod in our time. He did not think . that pedplo realised yet tho revolution I that had taken place. There had been i a time when the ideal of conduct which tho Church upheld had been recognised' by tho'State as the ideal of conduct. ’ and tho ideal of marriage which the ; Church uphold had been recognised bv ■ t.be.fjtate ns tho ideal of marriage. Ho ; ''did'not think it was realised that that hnxl gone. j "Christians Tolerated.” There was no Christian State to-day. < New Zealand was not a Christian State. Tt could not be. Ho did not mean that tho majority of tho people of this conn- 1 try were not Christians- But the mo- <

' ment that the State admitted to full rights of citizenship people who did not recognise tho Christian ideal (such as tho Mohammedans) it ceased to be a Christian State. Tho Christian ideal now was not necessarily the ideal recognised by the community as such. Tho Christian people were in the position of being tolerated. At present there was a sign—at least last session of Parliament there had been one —that even the tolerance might go. They had been allowed to hold up before their own people the Christian ideal of marriage, but that had very nearly gone, and indeed at tho present moment, if they took the strict letter of tho law, it had gone. Who wore to-blame? The laity. Tho laity were too much biased. If a clergyman incurred the penalty of £lOO prescribed in tho Marriage Amendment Act. how many of the laity even in the Synod he was oddressing would stand by it? He believed there were oven some who would say: “Servo him right.” "That is the wonk point,” said His Lordship. "The Christian ideal is not accented, and we stand as voices crying in the wilderness. The Roman priestI hood gets a certain amount of support in these questions. \Ve get hardly tiny. Thai is the honest truth of it, and I say it and you know it. Persecution. "We can only claim tolerance,' which may be taken from us. I believe ultimately it will be taken. I believe ultimately a few Christians will have to endure persecution. No community will, of course, tolerate any individual casting discredit upon its laws. In the false and delusive tolerance of rhe nineteenth century we imagined that the day of persecution was gone. 'L’hxt was because in the nineteenth century the cleavage between the Church and the State —not on points of dogma, but on points of conduct, on the ideal of conduct —had not been perceived- But it is becoming clearer’ now that the Christian Church stands for an ideal, and that the modern community does not accept it, and the result will be, I am perfectly convinced, that a few earnest Christians will ooon find themselves persecuted. I don't believe that any of us in this room will be persecuted, because our Christianity is too much of a compromise. But there may be some Christians among us, our children, who will find that the day of persecution is not gone, for the simple reason that no community will tolerate any practical resistance to its laws." His Lordship admitted that he had not thrown much light on Mr. Hadfield’s question. Modern legislators 1 thought that on the whole they avoided greater evils by permitting the lesser evil of divorce. That was a very difficult problem indeed, but he thought—he was sure, indeed —that the greater evils were caused by divorce. * Divorce might bring relief to a couple of individuals who were unhappy. But there was the debasement of the moral currency; and he could imagine nothing rfiore terrible than that two persons thould enter into the state of holy matrimony with the sub-conscious notion: "If this is not a success, I can get out of it.” A Woman’s Question. "What amazes me,” His Lordship continued, "is that the women of this country have not risen up, because it is the woman that suffers every time. I rejoice that I have no marriageable daughter. I can imagine some elderly scoundrel coming along with his new license of three years. 1 can imagine many innocent young girls being married by men with the deliberate purpose of leaving them after- a time. That certainly is not going to increases the happiness of this country; and it is the woman every time, and this is a woman's question." With reference- to the suggestion that a copy of tho resolution should be sent to the. Prime Minister, the Bishop said that he had no objection to sending the resolution to Mr. Massey, but he did not see how the Christian ideal could be imposed by law on a State that was not Christian. The present licence could be condemned on grounds of social utility quite apart from the Christian ideal of marriage. What he would try to enforce was this: If they were going to try to raise the public standard, if, for instance, they were going to try fo get the legislators wrestling with the problem, they might not be able to secure the highest ■ ideal of marriage, but they must strike , the compromise with evil as high in the moral scale as possible. It was a com- . promise with evil. The legislators had . dealt with people and things as they were: but did they strike the cornpro- . miso with evil as high in the scale as they could? Did it ever enter into their j heads? And if it did not enter into their heads, whose, fault was it? “Cast Out and Trodden Down.” ’ "We Christian people,” said the Bishop, "are here to hold up the Christian ideal of conduct. We cannot force it on others. We can do much better through our lives and conduct than we can do on the plat- ’ form. But are- we going to stand by ’ tho highest ideal? I am sure that is 1 the question with which Christian people 1 all over the world are faced. Remem- ‘ ber what Our Lord said will be the fate 1 of tho Church if found wanting. 'Ye I are the salt of the earth. Ye are the light of the world.’ I am not so sure we are not undergoing the fate as I stand 1 here. 'Tf the salt have lost its savour, ’ it is fit for nothing but to be cast out 1 and trodden down of men.’ Does it strike ( you that that may he what is happening - to the Christian Church this very day ’ —being cast out and trodden down of 1 men ? , "You remember St. Peters words: that judgment would Irtgin in the House- ' of God. lam not so sure that judgment 1 is not beginning now.” '