THE CHURCH AND DIVORCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23221, 19 June 1937, Page 21

THE CHURCH AND DIVORCE

TO THE EDITOR

Sir, —Let me begin by apologising to Mr W. D. Mason for not having noticed his letter before this. I was trying to avoid taking two bites at a cherry, for I knew pretty well that 44 Disgusted” would write again. 1 have great respect for John Milton, that seventeenth century champion of British liberty, but I must confess I have never read his treatise on divorce, referred to by Mr Mason. Milton or no Milton, however, the truth of my denial that the Anglican view on the subject is “man-made” must be patent even to Mr Mason himself, for surely there is a difference between a man-made law and a divine law wrongly interpreted. The point is that the Anglican Church believes that her interpretation of Christ's teaching is correct, and surely she has a right to believe this, seeing her belief is, as we know quite sincere. It is simply a question of exposition. I presume we all agree that on this subject, as on all other moral questions, Christ is Supreme. Provided His mind on any question is clear, there can be no appeal from that. Let me add here something I omitted from my first letter. Although, according to Matthew, Christ mentions fornication as justification for divorce, His words as reported by the two other synoptic evangelists mention no such exception. According to them the Christian rule is, No divorce (see Mark x, 11, and Luke xvi, 18). I notice, by the way, that neither of your correspondents attempts to tackle the really relevant evidence regarding this question. Their sole argument appears to be: 44 The State says such and such upon this theme; therefore it must be true.”

Nevertheless, for reasons which it is unnecessary for me to give here, I believe in the Anglican Church’s interpretation quite as little as does Mr Mason “ Disgusted ” asks, Why did I then protest and accuse him of bitter intolerance? I protested purely in the interests of religious liberty. A courteous and respectful criticism of a church's teaching on any subject is quite legitimate, but not an outburst of vindictive spleen such as we had in the first letter from our friend “ Disgusted.” One should always bear in mind that, in criticising the views of a church, we are usually criticising also many saintly persons of the past or present belonging to that church who have held those views And I have noticed time and again that violent criticisms of this character are frequently made by men not worthy to black the boots of the persons they criticise. Their principal inspiration appears to be a selfish desire to get their own way and an unseemly impatience with any who dare to impose restraint or to thwart their will. But in this case their will need not be ultimately thwarted at all. The registrar’s notice to the minister is purely permissive. Parties may always go back to the registrar to be married, or to some other minister, if the minister named refuses to act on the permission given. This permission is expressed on the form thus: “ Marriage may be " (not “ must be ”) “ solemnised between the said first party and the said second party." I claim, therefore, that not merely any particular church, but any individual minister, has a right to refuse to marry two parties (irrespective of previous divorce) if he has good moral reasons for so doing. There are some persons in the community—l do not affirm that they include Mr Mason and “ Disgusted "—who would take away that liberty from us They support the doctrine of the totalitarian State, which is contended for by the almighty Adolph away over in Germany! But if British people in this country are going to stand for that sort of thing. 1 am much mistaken. The Church is the proper judge of moral questions, not the State. And every church—the Anglican Church as well as others—is, by all the rules of British fair play, entitled to exercise such a discrimination in marriages. Apart altogether from the question of divorce, if a good-for-nothing fellow came to mo and asked me to marry him to one of our best Christian girls, I should, for her sake, decline his request without hesitation. Hang, draw and quarter me if you like, but it would make no difference! It is I who would have to answer for such a marriage at God's judgment bar. not the heads of the State!

All other matters referred 1o by your correspondents are irrelevant, and need no reply.—l am. etc.. C. B. Jordan. Parsonage, Roxburgh.