DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19378, 16 July 1937, Page 13

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

ATTITUDE OF CHURCH CHRISTCHURCH PRESBYTERY POSITION REAFFIRMED The attitude of the Christchurch presbytery towards divorce and remarriage—a reaffirmation of the historical attitude of the church—was confirmed when a statement submitted by the Rev. T. W. Armour, for the life and work committee, was approved at the monthly meeting of the presbytery, only one member dissenting. The resolution approving the statement was reached only after considerable discussion. The statement reads: "All ministers who are requested to marry divorced persons are required to exercise great care lest they join together thdse whose marriage the Church cannot approve. The presbytery reaffirms the historical position of this and other Presbyterian churches that divorce is allowable on Scriptural grounds only where there has been adultery or wilfful and continued desertion, in which case the marriage is de facto already broken and ended. "A minister is free if he should be so minded to marry the innocent party to such a divorce, but remarriage shall not take place until a period of one year shall have elapsed from the date of the decision allowing divorce. It is eminently desirable that all decrees of divorce should state explicitly the grounds of the judgment and, until this is the practice of the law courts, ministers shall require a declaration countersigned by the solicitor who has acted for the applicant in divorce proceedings that the grounds of the judgment are as stated, or other satisfactory evidence to the same effect. In all cases where there is doubt as to the propriety of the proposed re-marriage, ministers shall seek the guidance of the Presbytery through the special committee appointed for the purpose." Origin of the Matter

The matter had arisen, Mr. Armour said, because the laws of the State and of the Church did not run parallel. In 1922 a law passed in the Dominion allowed divorce on the ground of mutual consent after three years' Separation. There were cases where persons presented somewhat pitiful stories and where the facts were not clear. The minister might be tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt. "I think it is absolutely unscriptural for this church to countenance divorce," the Rev. T. Paterson objected. "Christian marriage is absolutely indissoluble. There is no innocent party in a divorce. Both are full of faults. I am criticising this church in that it is willing to bless unions which should not be countenanced. I submit that there is only one way to deal with the matter," he added. "In these days we must emphasise anew the sacredness of the home and the sacredness of marriage. I protest against the finding of this Presbytery, and I will stand by my protest." Other Grounds Suggested The Rev. J. Johnston suggested an amendment including incurable insanity and a life sentence through the courts as grounds for divorce. The recommendation was not seconded, and lapsed. The Rev. E. Swinerd: There are no words in the Scripture allowing divorce, except one thing, adultery or infidelity. The Rev. L. McMaster said he thought Mr. Patterson's conception was too idealistic, and was not allowing for human nature. The Presbytery's statement was too rigid. "Conditions to-day are very different from those for which the Scripture once applied," he said. "We are no longer living in those conditions. Y/e are no longer under Jewish law." Replying, Mr. Armour questioned the common sense and scholarship behind an attitude such as that expressed by Mr. Paterson. Mr. Paterson: I object to that. It's impertinent. "i , The statement was approved by the meeting after discussion, Mr. Paterson voting against its adoption.