DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20781, 16 July 1937, Page 13

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

THE PRESBYTERIAN ATTITUDE A REAFFIRMATION By Telegraph—Press Association CHRISTCHURCH, July 14. The attitude of the Christchurch Presbytery towards divorce arid 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 to-day, only one member dissenting. The resolution approving of the statement was reached only after considerable discussion. The statement reads as follows:

“All ministers who are requested to marry divorced persons are required to exercise great care lest they join together those whose marriage the church cannot approve. Tire 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 wilful 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 carry the innocent party to such a divorce, but remarriage shall not take place until a jxuiod of one year shall have elapsed from the date of the decision allowing the 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, counter-signed by the solicitor who has acted for the applicant in the 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 remarriage ministers shall seek the guidance of the presbytery through the special committee appointed for the purpose.” 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 year’s 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 said. “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 position,” 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.” 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 for one thing, adultery or infidelity.

The Rev. L. McMaster said he thought Mr Paterson’s conception too idealistic, not allowing for human nature. The Presbytery’s statement w^ s too rigid. “Conditions to-day are very different from those to which the Scripture once applied,” he said. “We are no longer living in those conditions. We are no longer under the Jewish law."

Replying to the discussion, 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 is impertinent.

The statement was approved by’ the meeting, Mr Paterson voting against its adoption.