MARRIED OR NOT?

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 169, 12 April 1930, Page 12

MARRIED OR NOT?

ONE TIME DIVORCEES PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OPPOSITION AN IMPORTANT MATTER Dominion Special Service. Auckland, April 11. Complaint that a deacon of the Pentecostal Church now known ‘ as the Assemblies of God in New Zealand had alleged, expressly or by implication, that a man and wife who were members of the Church until recently were not properly and sufficiently married, resulted in the hearing of a prosecution in the Police Court, before Mr. Hunt, S.M., to-day. The couple, who had been married after each had been previously' divorced, had recently been expelled from the Church. The magistrate reserved his decision and said the matter was one of great importance. The charge was brought by Jesse Charles Hawkins, an engine-driver, who contended that Louis Alfred Silson, the deacon, had alleged, expressly or by implication, that complainant and his wife, Alice Mary Hawkins, being persons lawfully married, were not truly and sufficiently married. It was alleged that Silson bad committed a breach of sub-sectional section 7 of the Marriage Amendment Act, 1920. Mr. Sullivan appeared for complainant and Mr. Stevens for defendant. Mr. Sullivan said that Hawkins and his wife were members of the Pentecostal Church of New Zealand, which was now known as the Assemblies of God, New Zealand. They were married on January 7, 1925, and had been members of the church since their marriage. Seven or eight months ago Silson refused to shake hands with Hawkins, saying that complainant and his wife were living an improper life. Hand-shaking was regarded as an important sign of good-fellowship in the church. “You Know What I Mean.” Silson was later made deacon, and on one occasion, while presiding, he had said: “There are people here that are of the devil. You know what I mean,” staring hard at Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins the while. On January 12, continued counsel, during Bible class Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins were cailed into the prayer room where there were four men—Silson, Phey, Pengelly, and Mansfield. Silson then read from the Scripture, laying emphasis on certain words which appeared to be directed at Hawkins and his wife. Mr. Sullivan said he had been consulted by Mrs. Hawkins, and had written to Silson demanding an apology on behalf of his client. On February 16 Mrs. Hawkins had received a letter from two elders of the church returning their membership cards. On March 6 Silson sent them a registered letter stating that in view of Scriptural teaching they had no further fellowship for the Hawkins in their present condition. Law, Not Theology. “I am here on a question of law and am not concerned with the theological side,” Mr. Sullivan said. “Neither am I,” said the Magistrate. Jesse Charles Hawkins said that on January 12 Mansfield asked him if his divorced wife was still living and he replied in the affirmative. He had not learned the attitude of the church toward divorced persons who remarried until after he had joined the church. The attitude was theu made apparent by the behaviour of members of the church toward himself and his wife. Mrs. Hawkins corroborated' her husband’s evidence and Mr. Sullivan’s statement.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stevens, witness said she had continued to attend church on the advice of her counsel even though her membership card had been returned to her.

Legally Married, but

Joseph Alexander Mansfield, a railway employee, who had been a member of the church since its inception, said that Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins ceased to be members of the church when their cards were returned to them hy the elders. Personally he considered that Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins were legally married, but the constitution of the church considered that divorced people who had remarried were living in adultery. The constitution of the church discouraged divorces. Mr. Stevens submitted that there was no offence as defendant had merely rend the Bible and said he believed in it. “We do not dispute the marriage,” he said. 'J’he magistrate: Well, you sav that they ore living in sin. so what do vou call that?,

Mr. Stevens: If your Worship is going to hold that defendant had committed an offence next week you will have half the church people up here with similar complaints. The magistrate: The Act was passed to stop people saying that sort of thing. Mr. Stevens submitted that the real trouble of which Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins complained was that they hnd been expelled from church. Mr. Sullivan : There was no such suggestion. Deacon’s Evidence. Louis Alfred Silson said that there were about 500 members and 1500 adherents of the church in New Zealand. It ■was a world-wide movement. He was honorary secretary and deaeon to the Auckland branch and believed in the constitution of the church, but he would not say that Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins were not properly married. The magistrate: What did you read that particular piece of Scripture for? Any sensible man would see the allusion. Silson: I am not responsible for the word of God. The Magistrate: No, I know there are a lot of words there that you must be careful in using. Defendant then repeated several passages from Scripture he had quoted to the Hawkins's. He said the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins, who were felt to be not in accord with the meeting, was a serious matter. “I do not suggest that these people are not truly and sufficiently married,” he said. Mr. Sullivan: When you read that piece to whom were you referring? Defendant: To them, I suppose. Mr. Sullivan: In the eyes of your church are they sufficiently married? Defendant: Yes. The Magistrate: Then why did yon nse n certain term in connection with them? Defendant; Because in the Word of God they are. John Phey. an elder of the church, said he remembered defendant reading passages from Scripture in the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins. “It is a matter of'the greatest importance,” said the Magistrate, who reserved his decision.