Remarriage debate in the Church of England: 1971 – 2000
Chapter
15 from The Great Divorce Controversy by ES Williams
With
the enactment of the no-fault legislation the divorce campaign had achieved its
objective with regard to the law. Clearly the state now regarded marriage as
little more than a temporary arrangement, the law doing everything it could to
assist divorcing couples to end their marriages as easily and quickly as
possible. The resulting growth of divorce meant more people would be requesting
a second marriage according to the rites of the Church, and the question was how
church discipline would respond to the new situation? While those who supported
the traditional view of marriage as an indissoluble bond believed that
remarriage in church was wrong, others believed that it was unreasonable for the
Church to refuse remarriage for those who had been lawfully divorced. Some even
argued that allowing remarriage in church would strengthen the institution of
marriage. They believed that the reluctance of the Church to allow remarriage
was hurtful, and discriminated against those who, although they were divorced,
were not to blame for the breakdown of their marriage. In a speech to the
Church Assembly in 1967 dealing with the remarriage issue, Canon DK Dean of
Southwark said that thousands of people were tired of being treated as
second-class citizens and third-class Christians. He pleaded for a thoughtful
look at the attitude which automatically shut the door to remarriage in church
irrespective of every other consideration. He did not mean that the Church
should follow the prevailing fashion of each generation, but that as fresh
problems arose new thought should be given to ways of meeting them. He did not
believe that the final word had been spoken, or that the Church had closed its
mind.1
The
obstacle in the way of church remarriage was the resolution passed in 1938, and
made an Act of Convocation in 1957, which stated in clear, unequivocal terms
that marriage was an indissoluble union and therefore remarriage in church was
not permitted. In an attempt to find a way around this obstacle a commission was
set up in 1968 under the chairmanship of Professor Root of Southampton
University. Its main purpose was to prepare a statement on the Christian
doctrine of marriage, and to enquire ‘whether there might be occasions for
relaxing the present rule of the convocations whereby a divorced person with a
former partner living may not have on remarrying a marriage service in Church’.2
The
Root Report – Marriage, Divorce and the Church
The
commission’s report Marriage, Divorce and the Church, which was published
in 1971, suggested that a full investigation into marriage required the
assistance, among others, of an anthropologist, a sociologist and a lawyer. The
commissioners claimed that many regarded the replacement of the concept of
irretrievable breakdown for that of matrimonial offence as a great gain from the
Christian point of view.3
‘Just as it is
possible for any organism to wither and die before it has grown into its full
nature, so too marriage may break down before it has grown into what it should
become.’4
The
report adopted a modern, contextual approach to the theology of marriage and
divorce. ‘The final and definitive “meaning” of passages in Scripture can never
be attained, nor are the words of the New Testament self-evident and timelessly
clear, precisely because they cannot be abstracted from their temporal and
spatial context, any more than the life of Jesus can be abstracted from its
context. Thus, although to some it seems to be the case that Jesus affirmed the
indissolubility of marriage in such sayings as “What God hath joined together,
let not man put asunder”, and “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry
another, commiteth adultery against her”, the fact remains that this is not the
only possible, or the only defensible, meaning of these texts. Equally, there
is no doubt that what Jesus is recorded as having taught about marriage and
divorce, and what he demanded of his followers as the standards of marriage,
left them amazed. This is not to say, however, that he meant that marriage
cannot be dissolved, or that in every conceivable circumstance it would be wrong
to remarry. The fact that there can be much genuine uncertainty and
disagreement among biblical exegetes on these points is of profound importance.
It is a direct consequence of the way in which God reveals himself to the world
in the realities of time and space. Scripture, equally, is offered to us as a
means of grace in the conditions in which we are.’5
From this
theological position it followed that an appropriate way of developing the
Church’s discipline on remarriage would be to find the majority opinion—the
moral consensus. ‘But the question needs to be asked whether there is the moral
consensus. It is not for the commission to attempt to determine the answer to
this question; but there is sufficient evidence to oblige us to raise this
question and others, which follow from it. Is there a growing consensus among
Christian people, both clerical and lay, first, that some marriages, however
well-intentioned, do break down; secondly, that some divorced partners enter
into new unions in good faith and that some of these new unions show such
evident features of stability, complementarity, fruitfulness, and growth as to
make them comparable with satisfactory first marriages; and thirdly, that
Christian congregations are not scandalised, in the theological sense of the
word, by the presence of such persons in their midst or by their participation
in the Holy Communion? If an affirmative answer is given to these questions,
then we are bound to raise the question that naturally follows from such an
answer. Is there also a growing moral consensus that such persons, with due
safeguards, may properly have their marriages solemnised according to the rites
of the Church? Indeed, it may well turn out on inquiry that a moral judgement
on this matter has already formed itself within the Church of England… in the
belief that remarriage in church would be not a weakening but a strengthening
of marriage. It is possible that those who say that to remarry in church would
cause offence to the Christian conscience may find that failure to do so causes
greater offence.6
‘If it
were to be found that a moral consensus in favour of remarriage in church (with
due safeguards) does exist, then it would be the duty of the bishops in Synod to
determine whether this consensus is theologically well founded. It is the
unanimous conviction of this Commission that this is the case. Such a moral
judgement would not be inconsistent with the witness and teaching of the New
Testament as a whole…’7
The
report suggested that a discreet inquiry should be made into three aspects
before a remarriage could be solemnised. First, the inquiry should establish
that all possible obligations remaining from the first marriage have been
discharged, such as the economic needs of the former spouse and her children.
Second, an inquiry into the character and dispositions of the two persons
seeking remarriage, including an investigation into the circumstances of the
previous divorce. Thirdly, assurance would be required of the same intention of
lifelong fidelity.
Comment
The
essence of the report was that it is not possible from the Scriptures to know
what Jesus was actually teaching, and in any case the interpretation needs to
change according to the circumstances of the time. If we cannot be sure that
Jesus taught that marriage was indissoluble, remarriage becomes a possibility,
in certain circumstances. Because of this uncertainty, the Church should decide
its position on remarriage according to the majority view. Whether it was right
or wrong to remarry divorcees in church would be decided by consensus. If the
majority view was in favour, then the theologians would seek scriptural
justification for the Church’s position. In other words, the Church’s teaching
on marriage would flow from the view of the majority. When the majority view
changed, then so should the marriage discipline of the Church. Furthermore, the
suggestion that the Church’s acceptance of remarriage during the lifetime of a
former partner would strengthen marriage is very different from Christ’s
teaching––he referred to remarriage following divorce as adultery. Effectively
the Church would be supporting the view that marriage is a temporary
relationship which can die and be replaced by another.
General Synod debates: 1972–1974
The
Root report was debated in Synod on three occasions. When Canon Herbert Waddams
introduced the report in 1972, he said the commission was of the opinion that
the words attributed to Jesus about divorce could not be taken out of the
context of his other sayings, and could not be treated as legislative and
binding when other parallel sayings were not regarded in that sense. The
commission considered that true Christian attitudes should combine the highest
doctrine of marriage with a practice which gave adequate attention to the needs
of personal fulfilment. To take the words of the New Testament text and apply
them literally and legalistically to conditions in the second half of the 20th
century was not the best way of fulfilling the teaching of Jesus. For these
reasons the commission had come to the conclusion that there were no simple
definitive answers to be found in the text of the New Testament to the personal
questions of the day, but that the teaching of the New Testament, as expressed
by Jesus, had to be taken in conjunction with the examination of moral,
theological, and practical issues, and a choice had to be made in the light of
all those.8
He said
there could hardly be doubt that marriages do in fact irretrievably break down,
and asked whether the Church had to continue to stand aside when people, perhaps
sincere Christians, wanted to enter into a new Christian partnership and to
remarry. Or was the Church to temper judgement with mercy in suitable cases and
proclaim by its action that God welcomes those, as he welcomes all repentant
sinners, and offers them a new life of creative and fulfilling love?9
In the
first debate in February 1972 the report was not well received in Synod. Many
voices were highly critical although there was also a fair amount of support.
Rev David Stevens believed the commission had made a disastrous mistake. It had
come up with the disastrous idea that the Church of England ought to reconsider
its attitude to the remarriage of divorcees during the lifetime of a previous
partner and so reverse the Church’s true moral consensus on a point arrived at
after many years of thought and not taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly or
wantonly. He had been investigating the matter for some years among the
ordinary parish clergymen, and five years ago had consulted a hundred clergymen,
the majority of whom wanted to keep the present regulations.10
Mrs
Catharine Lucas asserted that if the commission truly felt that the remarriage
of divorced persons in church was theologically well founded, then it should
have said so. It should have said, ‘There it is, take it or leave it. In the
past the teaching and practice of the Church has been wrong; now we know
better.’ What the conclusion seemed to say was: ‘If this is what you want to
satisfy what society feels you ought to be offering in 1972, then we will cook
the books for you.’ She mentioned that someone facing a similar ethical problem
had said, ‘Get thee behind me Satan.’ She asked whether the Church could
formulate and change its doctrine on the basis of the moral consensus of a
particular era.11
The
Bishop of Lichfield (Arthur Reeve) refuted the unworthy suggestion that by
maintaining church discipline on marriage they were being unkind and
uncharitable. He said that the Church believed that the institution of marriage
was vital for the true health of the nation. They believed that in maintaining
that principle they were doing something that was of the greatest value to the
greatest number of people. That was what they ought to go on doing and in so
doing would be showing true charity.12
Mr John
Easton expressed the opinion that if the commission’s proposal was accepted,
even if parish priests and bishops showed all the discretion they could in
operating the distinctions that would be required, the hard cases would
reemerge, and the Church would be forced into indiscriminate remarriage.13
The Bishop of Norwich (Maurice Wood) referred to a sentence in the report that
said, ‘And there is an increasing number of responsible church people, clerical
and lay, who in conscience find themselves unable to deny that remarriage can be
the will of God.’ The bishop believed that a sentence like that was designed to
lessen the unpopular, but right, standard of Christian marriage.14
A further
debate was held in November 1973 when the Synod was asked to consider three
resolutions. The first, proposed by the Bishop of Leicester (Ronald Williams),
recommended that there should be no change to the current rules of the Church.
The second, proposed by the Bishop of Worcester (Robert Woods), recommended that
the Church change its rule to allow the remarriage of divorcees in church during
the lifetime of their former partner, and the third resolution proposed that the
Synod should refer the matter to the dioceses to see if there was support for
the proposals, and whether there was theological justification for the
remarriage of divorcees. After a vigorous debate, and numerous amendments to
each resolution the matter ended in some confusion.
By the
time of the third debate, held in November 1974, the report Marriage Divorce
and the Church was clearly under heavy criticism. The Bishop of Truro
(Graham Leonard) gave the view that the report was based on an inversion of the
New Testament order about morals and theology. He said that as he read the New
Testament it seemed abundantly clear that moral action was derived from God’s
revelation in Christ. Man sees what God is like and what he has done for us.
Man sees that God wants us to respond to his love and walk worthily. But the
report put it the other way around. The commission said, ‘This is the way we
want to go; let us look for theological reasons to justify it.’15
The heavily criticised Root report was obviously not the vehicle to achieve
change in the marriage discipline of the Church of England.
The
Lichfield Report – Marriage and the Church’s Task
But
the issue would not go away. Those who promoted remarriage continued to argue
that the Church needed to reform its marriage discipline. They claimed that
even after a decade of debate the Church of England remained the most rigorist
of all churches in its pastoral practice. Although in 1975 there were just
fewer than five hundred remarriages of divorcees out of 133 thousand marriages
in the Church of England the promoters of remarriage asserted that there was
widespread dissatisfaction with the existing marriage discipline. Many church
leaders were determined that the Church should change its view on remarriage.
Accordingly in October 1975 the Archbishops of Canterbury and York set up
another commission under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Lichfield (Kenneth
Skelton). The aim was to examine afresh the Christian doctrine of marriage and
the marriage discipline of the Church of England, especially in the light of
recent debates in the General Synod and elsewhere, and to report on the courses
of action open to the Church in seeking to promote in contemporary society the
Christian ideal of marriage as a lifelong union between husband and wife.
The
commission published its report, entitled Marriage and the Church’s Task,
in 1978. It argued that although the figures showed remarriage in church was
not a pressing problem for the Church of England, this did not dispose of the
matter. Differences in practice between the Church of England and the Free
Churches had led to a position where the Church of England appeared to have the
strictest marriage discipline of all the churches in the country. Moreover, the
last decade had been marked by an increasing impatience among some clergy with
the present rules. Evidence received from one diocese in the Midlands indicated
that half of the clergy were dissatisfied with the present discipline of the
Church which disallowed the remarriage of divorcees. ‘In two dioceses the
diocesan bishop has made it known that he regards his clergy as free to marry
divorced people in appropriate cases. In dioceses where the bishop continues to
base his practice on the convocation regulations some clergy are willing “to
take the law into their own hands” or to exercise the right which the law of the
state gives them. It would be misleading to suggest that the clergy were as a
whole dissatisfied with the present situation.’16
The
report observed that the extension of nullity (of marriage) and the provision of
a public service of prayer and dedication were both, in their different ways, an
attempt to meet a particular problem by bypassing the convocation regulations.
‘We have come to the conclusion that a solution is not to be sought along those
lines. In our view the Church is faced with a choice between two possible
courses of action:
-
to maintain the present official position that divorced persons should in no
circumstances be married in church; and
-
to
adopt a system whereby, without conceding a general right of remarriage in
church, divorced persons were in certain cases permitted to be married in church
following a pastoral enquiry.’
Regarding the first option the report comments, ‘If the Church decided after
debate to maintain the position that divorced people should not be married in
church it would not be sufficient to do nothing, since it is dissatisfaction
with the existing system which has caused two successive enquiries to be set
up. It would therefore be necessary for that decision to be formally affirmed
by the General Synod, and embodied as an Act of Synod.’ In the opinion of the
authors, the second option of remarriage in church in certain cases was the
preferred one. At present the parish priest is free in law to marry divorced
people at his discretion. ‘In our judgement the use of this liberty is
inconsistent with the maintenance of a clear witness to the Church’s general
teaching on the permanence of marriage. For any scheme of selective remarriage
to work, it must be clear that the occasions when remarriage in church occur are
exceptional and determined by a consistent policy. The only way to ensure that
this happens is to require that the decision in each case be taken by the
bishop, or by members of a small panel nominated by the bishop to act on his
behalf.’17
Although
the Church’s witness to the true character of marriage fell on ears ready to
hear, its refusal to remarry created a barrier to understanding, ‘and a sense
of injustice, which on occasion lead to permanent alienation from the Church
and, in general, perpetuates a belief that it is out of touch with the reality
of married people’s lives’.18
Another advantage of selective remarriage, from the point of
view of the witness of the Church in society, was that ‘the dangerous impression
of pharisaism and unrealism, which attends the existing discipline, would be
dispelled. It would be apparent that the Church’s concerns for the stability
and permanence of people’s actual marriages was being affirmed in a way that
could have a stabilising effect on the institution of marriage itself. Instead
of standing apart from men and women marrying after divorce and thus being
unable to influence their attitude and intentions as at present, the Church
would be in a position to meet them where they are and to emphasise their need
for a realistic awareness of the past and of a mutual commitment for the
future.’19
The
commission, however, was not able to come to a common mind in regard to
remarriage in church. Although all on the commission took a ‘high view’ of
marriage, the majority considered that the best witness to that view of marriage
would be offered by a pastoral ministry which includes, in particular
circumstances, the marriage of some divorced persons in church. ‘We believe
that the Church of England ought now to be prepared, in appropriate cases and on
the basis of a diocesan decision, to allow this. A minority of us consider that
the Church should continue to refuse to marry divorced people, believing that to
depart now from a long held position would compromise the Church in its witness
to the society in which we live.’20
The report recommended – by majority – that:
The Church of England should now take steps to revise its regulations to permit
a divorced person with the permission of the bishop to be married in church
during the lifetime of a former spouse.
The
marriage of divorced persons in church should be solemnised by the use of one or
other of the existing permitted orders for the solemnisation of marriage, with
the addition of an appropriate invariable Preface.21
Comment
The
basic argument of Marriage and the Church’s Task was that current church
discipline is over rigorous, legalistic, unreal, and not meeting people at their
point of need; it causes a sense of injustice and alienation from the Church.
The inference was that divorcees were being deprived of their rights, unjustly
treated by being denied a second church wedding. Remarriage in church, on the
other hand, would soften the hardline image of the Church, meet the needs of
people and give them what they wanted. The best way for the Church to witness
to a ‘high view’ of marriage was to allow the selective remarriage of divorcees
in church. The arguments were purely pragmatic, and concerned about what was
likely to be popular.
Results of diocesan synod voting: 1979–1980
The
report was referred to the 43 diocesan synods to gauge the response. Debate in
the synods focused on the remarriage question. While eighteen dioceses carried
motions in favour of remarriage in church in certain circumstances, seventeen
dioceses voted against the remarriage motion, and another three confirmed their
opposition to remarriage by carrying motions to the effect that no change should
be made to the marriage discipline of the Church. One diocese defeated a motion
that no change should be made.22
In most dioceses
the vote was close. Even the dioceses that voted in favour had a division of
opinion, with a sizeable minority opposing remarriage in church. From the
point of view of those who advocated remarriage the response could not have been
worse. The Church was split down the middle, with an equal number of dioceses
being for and against the remarriage of divorcees in church. It was
inescapable that the Church was divided. The split was not just down the middle,
but also between the leadership and the grass roots.
General Synod debate: 1981
The
first debate on the Lichfield report took place early in February 1981,
following the diocesan votes. The Archbishop of Canterbury (Ramsey), who had
set up the commission, gave the report his firm support. He said that he did
not deviate from what he had said several times before in Synod. In the present
circumstances and as a matter of personal experience, some of the strongest
marriages he had known had been second marriages, because the teaching about
marriage as a lifelong bond was communicated in the most fertile soil, that was
people who came to the Church with a sense of failure, longing for forgiveness
and with a hope of building on realistic foundations. He believed that if the
Church had a strong and firm doctrine of marriage, it could afford to be
generous about the occasional exceptions which would need special treatment. He
still held to the recommendations of the Lichfield Commission and so was
disappointed that there was a lack of consensus and agreement. He hoped that
they could at least agree on the sort of service of thanksgiving for a
remarriage.23
The
Archdeacon of Doncaster (Ian Harland) expressed his concern that the man in the
street believed that the words ‘till death us do part’ actually meant physical
death. They had a difficult educational task helping the man in the street
understand that marriages did, in fact, die before physical death, and that it
was perfectly proper that the Church should find a known way of pronouncing them
dead. Secondly, the man in the street did not understand how it was possible
for those already bound by marriage vows to take them again. He said that to
provide some sort of release from vows might strike the man in the street as the
means of doing that with integrity, so that the Church was not departing from
its conception of the marriage as lifelong.24
The
Bishop of Durham (John Habgood) said that Synod needed to recognise that they
were in a double impasse. They were in an impasse because of the divisions
within the Church of England, and any decision to go forward on remarriage of
divorced persons would be deeply divisive and lead to different disciplines
being exercised in different dioceses. The second element in the impasse was
that they genuinely wanted to do two different things, and it was because of
that fundamental impasse that they found themselves divided as people. They all
wanted to support the stability of marriage, but they also all wanted some means
of exercising pastoral care and showing the love and compassion and forgiveness
of Christ to those whose marriages had died or come unstuck, and their problem
was how to do both of those things.25
Debate
in July 1981
The
remarriage debate continued during the summer meeting of the General Synod in
York in July 1981. Despite the deep division within the Church, the Bishop of
Winchester (John Taylor) introduced a motion proposing that there may be grounds
for remarriage in church during the lifetime of a former spouse. He said they
could not go on pretending that their present method of witnessing to the Lord’s
teaching about marriage was the last brake holding society from rushing down the
divorce slope. The rush was on, and if the brake had not held, they had to do
something other than stamp wildly on the foot pedal.26
The
Archbishop of Canterbury (Ramsey) spoke in support of the resolution, saying
that he had not changed his mind, but rather been fortified in the stance which
he had always taken in the discussion, which started in the Synod in 1972, as to
whether the Church could maintain its commitment to Christian marriage as a
lifelong relationship in good times and in bad and yet afford to be generous to
those who genuinely seek a second chance.27
The archbishop said there was very little hard evidence, as far as people
thinking about divorce, that religious sanctions had any impact on either
individual conduct or collective trends. What they knew was that at present,
the Church’s most positive role lay, not in reinforcing individuals against
divorce, but tragically in reinforcing the stigma of divorce.28
He noted
that for a great majority remarriage was not a second chance but a first chance,
based on a maturer understanding of what marriage involved and approached with
every intention of constructing, after a previous failure, a lifelong lasting
relationship.29
He said that it was now self-evident to those outside the
Church, as well as to many within it, that the Church’s corporate attitude
remained confused and confusing. There was as yet no visible consensus over
remarriage. Yet in its complexities and pastoral consequences it was not a
matter that could go on being left to individual clergy. More was now demanded
of the Synod than finely-tuned expressions of intent.30
Mrs Nancy
Wilkinson argued that the Church was in danger of creating a two-tier system.
That was proper marriage for first-timers, and what she called ‘an inferior and
rather shaming sort of sinners wedlock for the naughty ones, only to be entered
into by means of a special service or a penitential preface, after negotiating
various hoops set up by the bishop or the priest’. If they wanted such a dual
system of marriage then they should say so openly. But as she understood it,
what was being asked for was just one sort of sanctified cohabitation, and that
was marriage. If that was so, then surely it was only logical to marry all
comers on the same basis, and with the same service.31
Rev David
Holloway reminded the Synod that they were all trying to find an acceptable
solution to the problem. They had to face the reality that there was a serious
division of opinion in the Synod. They had the straightforward question: Is it
right to remarry divorced people in church while a former partner is still
living? But on that there was a division of opinion. On the one side were
those who want forgiveness, and on the other those who hear Jesus’ words
‘whoever divorces his wife and remarries another commits adultery against her’.
He made the point that they should only move forward with consensus. A small
majority did not work. Three years ago they voted by a small majority against
remarriage in church, but they were again reopening the whole issue on that
small majority. He asked how Synod could say to the world that they considered
one way or another was right when they had a close vote. He reminded them that
Synod meant going together. ‘We are not Parliament, we are the Church of Jesus
Christ, and the biblical way of deciding is that it seems good to the Holy
Spirit and to us.’ He reminded Synod that they were dealing with people’s
lives. He did not want to see splashed over the Sun or the Daily
Mirror or The Times that the Synod agreed to divorce and remarriage
unless the Synod as a body was sure that it was right.32
Rev Brian
Brindley said he belonged to that half of the Church who did not accept the
Lichfield proposal. He proposed an amendment to remove the word ‘remarried’
from the resolution before Synod, and replace it with ‘married’. He argued that
many found it extremely difficult to accept the notion implied by the word
‘remarriage’. He was also fearful that if this motion was passed it would
appear in the press that Synod agreed to remarriage.33
The amendment was accepted by Synod and the word ‘remarried’
was replaced, so the resolution read;
that there are circumstances in which a divorced person may be married [not
remarried] in Church during the lifetime of a former partner.
Rev
Peter Peterken said he was mindful that the Church outside the Synod was split
right down the middle on the main issue of remarriage in church. The fact was
that, whatever they decided they were likely to leave half the Church feeling
that a victory had been won and half the Church feeling that they had been
unfaithful to the Lord Jesus Christ. He did not believe that division and hurt
were what the Lord wanted for his Church, but he was sure it would please Satan
very much to see them tearing the bride of Christ apart while they were
discussing the question of Christian marriage.34
The
Archdeacon of Leicester reminded the Synod that it must keep faith with the
dioceses and send concrete proposals down to them. He said that without solid
backing at the grass roots of the Church, what they proposed would be quite
unworkable and would only cause bitterness, a black market in second marriages,
and all sorts of rackets.35
After a prolonged debate it was resolved on 7 July 1981 ‘that this Synod:
believes that marriage should always be undertaken as a lifelong commitment;
considers that there are circumstances in which a divorced person may be married
in Church during the lifetime of a former partner; and
asks
the Standing Committee to prepare a report setting out a range of procedures for
cases where it is appropriate for a divorced person to marry in church in a
former partner’s lifetime, for consideration by the Synod before any action is
taken to repeal or modify the relevant existing regulations and resolutions of
the convocations.’36
And
so the General Synod had made the momentous decision that a divorced person may
be married in church during the lifetime of a former partner under certain, as
yet undefined, circumstances. The voting in Synod was as follows: House of
Bishops, 27 in favour and 7 against; House of Clergy, 134 in favour and 58
against; House of Laity, 135 versus 49.
Comment
This
decision of the Synod was taken in the face of centuries of church discipline
that had made it crystal clear that the words of Christ did not permit
remarriage. The presumption that underlies the Synod’s resolution is that
marriage is not necessarily lifelong, for marriages can die. Consistent with
this belief, the Synod voted to dispense with the word remarriage, suggesting
that there was no difference between a first marriage and a remarriage following
divorce. In the eyes of the General Synod a first marriage is essentially the
same as a second, third or subsequent remarriage. The implication is that
divorce has no moral consequences.
The
General Synod, it appears, had made the remarkable discovery that the Church had
been wrong all the time; the Church fathers had misinterpreted the teachings of
Christ and misled the world. In its wisdom Synod would now correct this false
teaching, which for centuries had denied divorcees the right to be married in
church. The consequence of this decision was that the Church had changed its
message to the world; it was now saying that the teaching on remarriage had been
in error, harsh and lacking in compassion, for in truth the words of Christ had
all along permitted selected divorcees to remarry.
Report
of Standing Committee on Marriage Discipline: 1983
The
Standing Committee on Marriage Discipline produced a report in April 1983
entitled Marriage – and the Standing Committee’s Task.37
The Standing
Committee was aware of the need to move as quickly as possible, for it was now
important for the Church to institute changes so that its marriage discipline
was consistent with the recent Synod vote. In a wide ranging investigation the
committee considered virtually all the known procedures for church remarriage,
including: the Canon Law Nullity procedure, an Eastern Orthodox Church type
procedure, the Scottish Episcopal procedure, other Anglican Communion
procedures, the Parish priest’s sole discretion procedure, and another possible
Pastoral procedure. After considerable thought the committee finally came down
in favour of what was called ‘Option G’ as the preferred method for handling
requests for second marriages in the Church of England.
The
essence of ‘Option G’ was that the circumstances of each application for a
church wedding should be examined sensitively and with proper thoroughness.
Applications for remarriage would be made in the first instance to the
incumbent. The incumbent would be assisted by a green book which gave guidance
as to the extent and nature of the enquiries which should be made. On
completion of his initial enquiries the incumbent would fill out an application
form and submit it to the bishop. The bishop would add his comments before
passing the application to a panel of advisers. The panels would be
multi-diocesan as this would promote consistency across the country. The
Standing Committee were of the ‘unanimous conviction that if permission for
marriage in church is duly given, that marriage should be solemnized according
to one of the currently authorised marriage services. There should be no
question of a different type of – or second class – marriage service for second
marriage occasions.’38
The
report concluded that any acceptable procedure must include provision for a
release from marriage vows. There are two reasons for such a release. First, to
assure the individual that he is no longer obliged to keep vows previously so
solemnly made (whether or not he sees them as being still operative) and to
remove all hesitancy, and perhaps even guilt, about making identical vows a
second time, and second, ‘to assure the Church, both locally and generally, that
the second marriage is not being undertaken lightly and that what is being done
is being done advisedly, openly and officially with the Church’s approval and
that what is proposed in the second marriage is marriage according to the
Church’s understanding and law, and nothing less.’39
General Synod debate: July 1983
The
report of the Standing Committee was considered by the General Synod in July
1983. When Mr Oswald Clark introduced the report he reminded the Synod that
they needed to make a decision. He said that something had to be done by the
General Synod if the present unsatisfactory situation was not to subside into
utter chaos with every bishop and priest going their own way to the public
disrepute of the Church of England and the further undermining of the permanence
of the institution of marriage. The Standing Committee pleaded for a decisive
answer that week. Moreover, whatever the popular press might choose to say,
the subject before the Synod was ‘marriage’ and not ‘remarriage’, for the Synod
motion of 1981 was specifically amended to make that plain.40
But not
everybody was satisfied with the proposals before Synod. Mrs Katherine O’Hanlon
spoke as a former national Chairman of Young Wives’ Groups and vice chairman of
the Mothers’ Union. She said that the report and its bureaucratic procedures did
not uphold Christian marriage. She raised the question of compassion for the
wounded person who saw their spouse lusting after another, and rushing off to
the nearest church to have another Christian marriage. She wanted to know how
many times a person could be absolved from their vows. A couple could marry and
in just over three years come back with a different partner, taking the same
marriage vows. She reiterated her question—how many times could they take the
marriage vow?41
The
Archbishop of Canterbury (Robert Runcie) was a keen supporter of the proposals.
He observed that it might be impossible to persuade some people outside the
Church that it was not a step in the direction of laxity. The Synod ought to be
clear that what they were doing was no retreat from the highest possible view of
marriage. Moreover, he did not believe that the proposals embodied in ‘Option
G’ were excessively bureaucratic. He did not believe that they should dismiss
them as such without having some experience of them. He urged the Synod to
support the proposals because it was becoming increasingly difficult to explain
to couples that the Church had agreed to something in principle but had not
devised a means of putting that principle into practice.42
Mrs Joyce
Coombs was scathing about the procedure for investigating the circumstances of a
previous marriage. She asked where the information would be obtained—from the
former spouse, from mothers, from fathers, from mothers-in-law and
fathers-in-law, from sisters and sisters-in-law, from neighbours on the one side
and neighbours on the other side, from parochial church councillors? She
thought the whole thing was revolting and shame-making and humiliating. She was
entirely opposed to the malevolent bureaucracy. She hoped that some other and
better system would come to light.43
On July
14 1983 the Synod carried a motion adopting ‘Option G’ as the procedure for
consideration as to whether a divorced person may be permitted to marry
according to the rites of the Church. It also requested the Standing Committee
to bring forward as quickly as possible such proposals as were necessary to
rescind the existing resolutions which prevented the remarriage of divorcees in
church. The motion was carried with two-thirds of the Synod voting in favour.
The voting went as follows: House of Bishops, 33 for and 10 against; House of
Clergy, 131 for and 64 against; House of Laity, 120 for and 69 against.
Remarriage procedures (Option G) unacceptable: March 1984
But
the dioceses were not willing to accept ‘Option G’. The General Synod received
a report from the House of Bishops in March 1984 stating that the bishops had
run into a serious problem in the dioceses.44
Diocesan
discussions had made it clear that ‘Option G’, which had been approved by a
two-third majority in Synod, was not the way forward. The bishops’ report
hastened to reassure Synod that although ‘Option G’ was unacceptable there was
strong support for the principle of the selective remarriage of divorcees in
church. It was just the procedures that the dioceses did not like. ‘In the
light of the consultations in dioceses, the House (of Bishops) has come to
believe that the elements of a new, more generally acceptable, approach might
start with placing the responsibility for the decision firmly upon the bishop of
a diocese in consultation with the parish priest, and, in difficult cases, with
a panel of diocesan advisers. It would be necessary to establish generally
agreed criteria endorsed by the General Synod for the guidance of diocesan
bishops and of the clergy and lay people concerned.’ The bishops wished to test
the opinion of the General Synod on whether their approach would have the
Synod’s support. The House of Bishops hoped that the Synod would be able to
consider the new proposals in November 1984 for final approval, so that they
could take effect from early 1985.45
The
Bishop of Winchester (John Taylor) told the Synod that in view of the
overwhelming dissatisfaction with ‘Option G’, the House of Bishops had decided
unanimously that it should not return the report of the Standing Committee to
the Synod. The Synod was asked to entrust to the bishops the drafting of a
fresh regulation that would take account of the main criticisms of the ‘Option
G’ procedures and be more widely acceptable. The bishop said that a straw poll
among the clergy revealed strong support for some change. He argued that the
House of Bishops was ideally placed to produce a more generally acceptable
procedure. He said that since there was wide agreement that the diocesan bishop
should be the final arbiter when any couple sought permission for a church
wedding in those circumstances, the bishops would inevitably judge each
suggestion with their eye on its practicality for themselves and their priests.46
The
Bishop of London (Graham Leonard) spoke a word of warning. He made the point
that they lived at a time when the state had been steadily eroding not only the
Christian understanding of marriage, but marriage as a fundamental human
institution. He said that the marriage union of one man to one woman for life
to the exclusion of all others was now treated in the law and in the courts as
no more than a temporary contract terminable at will. The Law Society said
that it had no obligation to uphold Christian marriage and family life. In his
judgement the administration of the law as it stood had in effect removed any
moral content to the understanding of marriage by the law. It was against that
background that the Church had to determine its policy on the marriage of
divorced persons.
He
reminded the Synod of Article 21 of the Thirty-nine Articles; ‘that Councils of
the Church for as much as they be an Assembly of men, whereof all be not
governed with the Spirit and Word of God, may err and sometimes have erred even
in things pertaining unto God’. He asked the Synod, whether they had not erred
in one respect. He asked, in view of the difficulties the Synod was
experiencing, whether the right and sensible thing to do was to stop and ask
themselves whether they had not erred. He was referring not just to the York
resolution but to the thrust of their concern ever since the Root report.
The
Bishop of London did not believe that the great majority of those seeking the
best for the country were primarily concerned with the issue of marriage in
church for the divorced. He believed that to offer simply repetition of the
marriage service with its vows as they stood would inevitably be taken by the
country at large with deep disappointment and with sadness, if not anger, as no
more than the Church coming along to endorse what the state had done. He
believed that many in the country were now looking for a bold affirmation by the
Church of the meaning of true marriage, of the responsibilities which it
brings; of the care for children which it lays upon those who undertake it; of
the virtues of loyalty and faithfulness. The Synod should have the humility and
the courage to say that they had isolated one issue and had failed to emphasise
their positive responsibilities; that they believed that the institution of
marriage was not merely for Christians, though Christians were given the grace
to fulfil it; that they believed that it was an institution given by God in
creation and the Church therefore had the responsibility to speak to all men.47
The
Archbishop of Canterbury spoke in support of the proposal that the bishops be
asked to produce draft marriage regulations for the Church. He said they should
not forget that they were concerned with ministering an act of divine
generosity. That was always open to misunderstanding by those who had been
faithful to the rules.48
In
March 1984 two-thirds of the General Synod voted for a resolution inviting the
House of Bishops to produce draft regulations for the remarriage of divorcees in
church.
The
draft Marriage Regulations
A
report of the House of Bishops, which introduced the draft Marriage
Regulations, explained that a division existed within the Church. ‘In the
Church of England some, who hold that marriage is a divinely sealed contract or
an eternal bond of a sacramental character, regard the marriage in church of a
divorced person whose former partner is still living as either not permissible,
or as not possible, except where it can be shown that the previous marriage was
not a true marriage. Others in the Church of England, who regard marriage as a
permanent covenant, sacramental in character, through which two people become
one in the fidelity of love, hold that marriage can be dissolved if the bonds of
love and mutual commitment have been totally broken down. This view is based on
an understanding of the character and teaching of Christ as revealed in the
gospels in upholding God’s law yet ministering his grace (or on the Matthean
exception in Matthew 19 or on the Pauline privilege in Corinthians.) In the
light of this new marriage in church may be permissible despite the fact that
the former spouse is still living. All believe that their views are rooted in
Scripture and found in the practice of the Church from the earliest times.’49
The draft
regulations, entitled Marriage in church after divorce, proposed that the
divorced person may be free to marry in church under the following conditions:
if the relationship now dissolved by divorce was, either in its original
intention – or as it developed, one which clearly failed to aspire to the nature
and purpose of marriage as taught by our Lord
where
the prime reason for the breakdown of the former marriage was arbitrary action
by the other party of that marriage or where the applicant was divorced against
his or her will
where
a turning to or from Christ by one partner of the former marriage caused an
incompatibility of spirit that love could not overcome.50
Comment
According to the bishops’ proposals a marriage can be dissolved if the bonds of
love and mutual commitment have been totally broken down. In other words,
marriage lasts only as long as a husband and wife are in love. Should they fall
out of love, or should either’s commitment wane, the marriage bond is dissolved
and they are free to divorce. The marriage is said to have died, and so the
parties are free to marry again. The bishops claim this view of marriage is
rooted in Scripture. But it is not difficult to see that this view will allow
divorce on demand, for anyone who out of their selfish desires wants a divorce
in order to marry someone else, can declare that they are no longer in love with
their marriage partner. Anyone can assert that they are no longer committed to
their marriage and claim the right to a divorce. This is this very attitude to
marriage that Christ called adultery. The view of marriage held by the bishops
has more in common with the ideals of secular humanism than the teachings of
Christ. The biblical view of marriage will be discussed in chapter 15.
Result
of diocesan synod voting: 1985
In
1985 the diocesan synods were again asked to respond—this time to the draft
Marriage Regulations produced by the House of Bishops. They were asked to vote
on the motion ‘that this synod approves the terms of the draft Regulations
referred by the General Synod following its July 1984 group of sessions’.
Diocesan synods were requested to respond by January 1985 so that the draft
regulations could be taken to the General Synod for final approval.
Once
again the dioceses voted down the proposals by a decisive majority; the official
motion was rejected in 31 diocesan synods and approved in only 12. Voting by
houses within the diocesan synods was as follows: bishops in favour 31, against
12; clergy in favour 15, against 28; laity in favour 12, against 31.51 Clearly there was a large difference of opinion between the
bishops on the one hand, and the clergy and laity on the other hand.
General Synod debate: 1985
There
is little doubt that the promoters of remarriage were hoping to achieve a
successful outcome to their campaign in 1985. They had the support of most
bishops and a majority in the General Synod; all that they needed was a majority
vote in the dioceses, and the battle would be won. But the decisive diocesan
vote made it clear that the grassroots did not support the campaign to change
the marriage discipline of the Church. Moreover, the fact that the dioceses had
now, on two occasions, decisively rejected proposals for introducing remarriage
in church raised serious doubts about the frequent claims that there was strong
support for change. Instead, it seemed that the push for change was coming from
the bishops and the General Synod against the wishes of the body of the Church.
It was
now impossible for the bishops to take their discredited draft Marriage
Regulations to the Synod for final approval. Once again the House of Bishops
prepared a paper for Synod reporting the defeat of their draft Marriage
Regulations in the diocesan Synods. ‘Despite the general principle agreed by
the General Synod in July 1981 that “there are circumstances in which a divorced
person may be married in church during the lifetime of a former partner”, the
attempts to reach a consensus on an appropriate procedure to implement that
decision have failed. In these circumstances the House (of Bishops) has
resolved not to refer the draft Marriage Regulations to the General Synod for
approval. This means that the present convocation resolutions remain in force.
The House agrees however:
-
that there is a substantial number of those in the Church who believe in good
conscience that a “second” marriage is possible in some cases
-
that
those clergy who take this considered view are free under the provision of civil
law to allow such “second” marriages and that a number are already doing so
-
the
ultimate decision in such cases must be a matter for the clergyman concerned.
The
House of Bishops hoped that those clergy who wished to allow a “second” marriage
to take place in church would seek the advice of their bishops. The overall
desire was to achieve as much pastoral consistency and fairness as was possible
in the present circumstances.,52
The
Bishop of Guildford (Michael Adie), introducing the bishops’ paper, informed the
General Synod that there was clearly not a sufficient majority for change. He
said that although the draft Marriage Regulations had been proposed by the House
of Bishops and accepted by the Synod, the House did not bring it back. The
substantial view of the House was that they must come to terms with the fact
that there were significant numbers on both sides of the debate. To try to move
firmly in either direction seemed inappropriate. The bishops therefore advised
that there should be no further formal action on the matter. Rather they must
face the realities which were:
The convocation resolutions of 1957 (Canterbury) and 1938 (York) still stand.
These resolutions state clearly: ‘The Church should not allow the use of the
(marriage) service in the case of anyone who has a former partner still
living.’ In Canterbury in October 1957 the resolutions were declared to be an
Act of Convocation, and, unless and until rescinded, have the force that belongs
to such an Act. That statement therefore remains the primary statement of the
position of the Church of England on this matter.
In
July 1981 the Synod passed a resolution, ‘that there are circumstances in which
a divorced person may be married in church’, but that statement was a prelude to
asking for a report on procedures to make that principle operative….
Clergy
have had since 1857 freedom to refuse to marry the divorced, but of course they
have had also freedom at law to marry such people. A number of clergy use that
freedom to solemnise the weddings of divorced people. They have not needed the
permission of the bishop to undertake such weddings and most bishops have not
hitherto thought it right to be involved in that decision.
The
clergy were asked to seek the advice of their bishop in order to ensure that any
priest who intended to marry divorced people had taken all the factors into
account in reaching that decision in principle. The priest would, for his own
satisfaction, need to justify his decision to act contrary to the primary
regulations of the Church. The bishops’ concern was to secure responsible
decisions, and to achieve such consistency between one parish and another, and
between one diocese and another, as circumstances allowed. But the House of
Bishops was not giving a green light to ‘second’ marriages, as had been
suggested. They were not advocating that every man should do that which was
right in his own eyes. They were recognising the division of view in the
Church; they were aware of the strain that this would impose on many, and were
ready to face their responsibilities and give advice and leadership in a
situation which had to be described as unsatisfactory.53
Canon
Douglas Rhymes said that if they sought the advice of one bishop they would get
one kind of advice, and if they sought the advice of another they would get
different advice. They could not have a doctrine of marriage which is
indissoluble, and then marry again, unless and until they could in some way
declare the previous marriage defective and therefore dead, because it was just
a theological impossibility. He gave the opinion that probably more than half
the Church, looking at the statistics and the voting in Synod, believed that
there was a real and profound theological case in many cases for the remarriage
of those who had been married and whose partners were still alive, not out of
convenience, not to follow the spirit of the times, but because of the doctrine
of grace and forgiveness. For that very positive reason, many in the Church
believed that a second marriage was the will of God, when the first had failed,
when there was real penitence, when forgiveness had been received and when a new
start could be made with the blessing of the Church.54
The
Archbishop of Canterbury said that in the report before the Synod it would be
thought that two contradictory methods have been put down side-by-side. Some
will appeal to the convocation regulations as their authority, while others will
appeal to the 1981 resolution of the Synod which can be implemented at the
parish priest’s discretion. He did not believe that to be an entirely fair or
constructive impression. There were clearly those, like himself, who had argued
for a consistent pastoral discipline to allow for some second marriages to be
solemnised in church, and in Synod they had not carried the day.
The Synod
should recognise why it had not been possible despite prolonged consultation to
implement the 1981 resolution. First, the repetition of the marriage vows in
church was an offence to many people. Second, a belief that in days of rising
divorce figures and rising unease as to whether recent legislation had seriously
undermined the principle of marriage as lifelong in intention, the Church should
not even seem to be departing from it. Third, the real pastoral problem of
discriminating between the deserving and the undeserving by some general rules;
and, fourth, reluctance on the part of a majority to go down the road of
extended nullity. He said that there came a time when he must agree that there
is no real consensus in his favour, and that the peace of the Church demanded
that they cease this endless wrangling over a question on which they were so
divided.
It is
much more important that they concentrate on the immense pastoral need for
preparing and sustaining people in their marriages, and recognising the plight
in which they were placing the parish priest by speaking with a divided voice.
Their failure to agree had put the responsibility of judgement clearly back
where it belonged—the parish priest in consultation with his bishop.55
Comment
It
was now abundantly clear that despite two commissions and a prolonged debate,
the grassroots of the Church of England remained unconvinced that it was right
to remarry divorcees in church.
There is
no doubt that the driving force behind the campaign for remarriage was the House
of Bishops that was using the General Synod to force its views on the Church.
Decisive votes against its proposals in the dioceses surely represented a
massive vote of no confidence in the leadership of those who were promoting
remarriage in church. But the promoters of remarriage were not prepared to
accept defeat. They were quite prepared to play a waiting game. All that they
had to do was wait until the views in the dioceses changed and they would be
assured of success. It was essential to keep the issue on the agenda, and to
keep pushing the idea that those who opposed remarriage were hardliners who
lacked compassion. Within less than a decade the remarriage issue was again on
the agenda of the General Synod.
General Synod debate: 1994
In
December 1994 a private motion was introduced in the Synod by the Rev Paul
Needle;
His
aim was to get the issue back on to the agenda as soon as possible. He noted
that it was now politically correct to refer to remarriage as the ‘further
marriage of divorcees’. He pointed out the inconsistency in church discipline.
He said that if someone lived in some dioceses an incumbent might allow them to
marry, with the support and the permission of the diocesan bishop. In other
parishes individual incumbents assumed the right to set the law of the land over
the Act of Convocation which governed present church thinking. In the rest a
request to a bishop was likely to be met with a refusal for such a ceremony.56
The
Archdeacon of York (George Austin) said they had heard a good deal about
compassion. He wanted to make a plea for compassion for those who were hurt by
the breakdown of marriage and who were not necessarily seeking remarriage, the
children of a broken home, the divorced wife or sometimes husband left to bring
up the children alone, who then find, in all their pain and hurt, that the
Church was going to remarry the spouse who had treated them like that. He said
that compassion should be for everybody, not just for the person coming along
for the second marriage. He was concerned that the Church of England was
beginning to be held in contempt by many people because they seemed ready to
cast aside their principles at the drop of a hat.57
The following motion was carried;
The
issue was once again referred back to the bishops to make proposals for the
remarriage of divorced people in church.
Marriage
– a teaching document:
1999
Five
years later the House of Bishops published a teaching document which was clearly
meant to prepare the ground for the long-awaited report on remarriage.
According to the document, ‘Marriage is a pattern that God has given in
creation, deeply rooted in social instincts, through which a man and woman may
learn love together over the course of their lives. We marry not only because
we love, but to help love. Without the practice and disciplines of marriage,
our love will be exhausted and fail us, perhaps very harmfully to ourselves and
others. When publicly and lawfully we enter into marriage, we commit ourselves
to live and grow together in this love.’59
And marriage helps each partner grow in maturity, and overcome personal failings
and inadequacies. Continuing on the theme of love, the report says that for
love in marriage to grow, it must develop in a number of ways. ‘The emotional
failure of a marriage may indicate that one or both partners have not recognised
the need for growth, and are looking simply to repeat the same kind of emotional
satisfactions with which their love began.’60
Comment
It is
significant that this view of marriage is not based in biblical truth, but
rather on the secular humanist notion that the essence of marriage is love. The
key verse from Genesis, which forms the foundation of the biblical view of
marriage – ‘for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united
to his wife, and they will become one flesh’ – is not mentioned. And this is a
remarkable omission for it was this verse that both Jesus and the Apostle Paul
used when they taught about marriage and divorce, as we shall see in chapter 15.
How
do the bishops understand marriage breakdown? Marriage claims that from
the time of the Reformation the Church of England has rejected its belief in the
indissolubility of marriage. ‘All Christians believe that marriage is
“indissoluble” in the sense that the promises are made unconditionally for
life. “For better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy
ordinance”: these well-known words, used for many centuries, are decisive for
what it means to undertake marriage. Some strands of the Western Church have
concluded from this that a divorce decree is ineffective and a subsequent
marriage invalid in the eyes of God. The reformers of the Church of England did
not believe that this was taught in Scripture, and they did not teach it in The
Book of Common Prayer. In this respect they came closer to the understanding of
the Eastern Church, which allows for the possibility of the “death” of a
marriage. Yet from the seventeenth century until the present century English
Church law made no allowance for a second marriage in the lifetime of a previous
partner; and some Anglican Christians have believed, and still do, that such a
marriage is, strictly speaking, impossible.’61
Comment
There
are two problems with this paragraph. The first problem is the suggestion that
the Church of England did not believe that Scripture or The Book of Common
Prayer taught that a subsequent marriage [following divorce] is invalid in the
eyes of God. The inference that flows from this statement is that the vows of
the marriage service do not mean that marriage is for life. We have already
heard the Archdeacon of Doncaster’s (Ian Harland) dismay at the fact that the
man in the street believes that the words ‘till death us do part’ actually means
physical death. The Church ‘had a difficult educational task helping the man in
the street understand that marriages did, in fact, die before physical death,
and it was perfectly proper that the Church should find a known way of
pronouncing them dead’.24
And so we are asked to believe that the vow ‘till death us do part’ refers not
to the death of one of the marriage partners, as most people have believed
through the centuries, but to the death of the marriage. The difficulty with
this ‘spin’ is that we are expected to believe that the words do not mean what
they appear to mean, but rather that they are meant to convey the metaphysical
notion that a marriage may die. How many people who have taken their marriage
vows in the Church of England would accept this interpretation?
Second,
the claim that the reformers of the Church of England did not believe in the
indissolubility of marriage is inconsistent with the historical facts. As we
have already seen in chapter 3, the continental reformers, strongly influenced
by the writings of the Renaissance humanist Erasmus, developed what has come to
be called the Protestant doctrine of divorce. The continental reformers, led by
Martin Luther, claimed to find grounds for divorce in the Scriptures. But what
was the response of the Church of England to the teachings of the continental
reformers? In 1543 Henry VIII set up a commission under Archbishop Thomas
Cranmer to examine the issue. Strongly influenced by the continental reformers
Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer, the commission eventually produced the
Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum in 1552 which proposed that divorce should
be legalised in England on the grounds of adultery, desertion, deadly hostility,
and unjustifiable violence by a husband against his wife. However, these
proposals met opposition in the House of Commons and were opposed by the clergy
of the Church of England. According to John Keble, ‘it pleased God to put a
stop to the contemplated change, when all seemed ripe for it’.62
And so the Church of England, despite the upheavals on the continent, remained
theologically and pastorally committed to the indissolubility of marriage and
the Reformatio Legum was never implemented.
In 1597
the Provincial Synod of Canterbury, under Archbishop John Whitgift, promulgated
canons stating the Church’s position. ‘Let those persons who have separated
from each other be directed by monition and prohibition to live in chastity, and
not to have recourse to other marriages so long as the other lives.’63 At the end of the Elizabethan era, in 1603, the canon laws
of the Church of England were revised to make it absolutely clear that the
Church did not recognise a full divorce with the right of remarriage. It was
now clear that the matter of divorce was settled in the mind of the Church of
England, and divorce a vinculo matrimonii was not permitted by the
ecclesiastical courts. By the beginning of the 17th century the Church of
England and continental Protestantism had parted ways with regard to their
position on divorce.
Historically the Church of England has always believed that marriage is an
indissoluble union and therefore that divorce with the right to remarry is
contrary to the teaching of the Church. What is true is that there has always
been a minority within the Church of England, usually well represented among
the bishops, that has sought to undermine this teaching and introduce divorce
with the right to remarry into the marriage discipline of the Church.
Undoubtedly, the document Marriage is yet another attempt to justify this
position.
And
does the Church believe that a further marriage is possible after divorce?
According to Marriage, ‘in some circumstances to marry again after
divorce may compound the wrong that one has done, for example when obligations
to the partner or children of the first marriage are not being met’. But in
other circumstances remarriage ‘may be responsible, prudent (for example in the
care of young children) and emotionally wise. There is no simple rule for
discerning this, for each case is different.’ The Church has to decide whether
the remarriage ought carried out in church. In the past, the Church met this
responsibility by refusing to remarry a person with a still living partner in
church. The report mentions that the Church has been discussing changes to its
policy on remarriage in response to changing pastoral needs. However, should
the Church decide to change its marriage discipline to allow remarriage, ‘it
will be on precisely the same principles that have guided it up to this point:
that marriage is an unconditional commitment for life; that a further marriage
after divorce is an exceptional act…’64
And how
do we know God in marriage breakdown? God meets ‘us as free and generous mercy,
and as demanding holiness; these two characteristics are not in tension or
contradiction, but complementary. The scope of God’s holiness is the scope of
his mercy, and the more we are ready to open ourselves to the demand, the more
we will know of his generosity, forgiving us where we have failed and granting
us success where we thought we were bound to fail.’65 And so for those who are seeking a second marriage the
Church advises not to hurry into a new marriage, and makes the point that a
church marriage may currently be possible if one lives in a parish where
experimental diocesan guidelines are being followed. But the church remarriage
is dependent upon an honest discussion of the past, and a willingness to allow
the minister, in discussion with the bishop ‘to reach a decision about the
appropriateness of your marrying in church’.66
Marriage in church after divorce
– a discussion document: 2000
A
discussion document from a working party commissioned by the House of Bishops
was finally published in January 2000. The report acknowledges that marriage
should always be undertaken as a lifelong commitment and says that nothing in
the report should be taken to imply any change in the Church of England’s
teaching on marriage.
The
report holds the view that ‘it can be said in a literal sense of two people that
they were married and are no longer married’.67 Where there is honesty to the work of the Holy Spirit ‘the
Church’s duty and privilege is to assure the believer of forgiveness and
acceptance in Christ. This may take the form of supporting him or her in
a new marriage.’68 Discernment is required in deciding each particular case.
The report believes that remarriage should take place in accordance with a
nationally agreed set of pastoral criteria, principles and procedures which will
need to be implemented with care and precision.69
The
pastoral criteria suggest that the following areas should be explored:
-
the couple should clearly understand the purpose of marriage (i.e. that it
should be faithful and lifelong);
-
they
should have come to terms with the breakdown of the previous marriage and should
show sufficient readiness to enter wholeheartedly into the new
relationship, with evidence of repentance, forgiveness and generosity of spirit
regarding the previous relationship;
-
adequate provision must have been made for any children and for the former
spouse;
-
a
reasonable time should have elapsed since the divorce: the further the divorce
lies in the past, the less personal and social ‘baggage’ is likely to be carried
into the new relationship;
-
the
new marriage should not be such as to give rise to hostile public comment or
scandal;
-
the
relationship between the applicants should not have been a direct cause of the
breakdown of the former marriage;
-
neither of the partners should have been married and divorced more than once;
-
there
should be evidence of receptiveness to the Christian faith.70
This
report has been sent to diocesan synods, which are being asked to respond by
March 2001, with a view to reporting to the General Synod before the end of
2001.
Comment
It is
worth recording the shift in the public position of the leadership of the Church
on the issue of remarriage. In the 1920s, during the acrimonious debates in
the House of Lords, the bishops were united in their public opposition to the
remarriage of divorcees in church. So strong was this opposition that the
Archbishop of Canterbury introduced an amendment, with the full support of the
bishops in the House of Lords, that the marriage of a divorcee ‘whose former
husband or wife is still living, shall not be solemnised in any church or chapel
of the Church of England’. The Bishop of Ely explained that their opposition
was based on loyalty to the words of Christ. He said that a very large number
of Christians would be distressed if remarriages were solemnised by the marriage
service of the Church. The Archbishop of York, quoting from the marriage
service, said that a remarriage, which used the words of the marriage service,
must be unreal, and in some cases would be a mockery. In 1938 the Church of
England accepted the recommendations of the Church and Marriage report
and resolved that ‘remarriage after divorce during the lifetime of a former
partner always involves a departure from the true principle of marriage as
declared by our Lord’.71
In 1955
Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher wrote in Problems of Marriage and Divorce that
‘there are a number of reasons why the Church is right to exclude from marriage
in church all, without exception, who have a former partner still living… The
Church has its duty to Christ and to society to bear witness to what he said
marriage is. It cannot, least of all in present circumstances, make exceptions
in its public solemnisation of marriage without compromising its witness.’72
In direct
opposition to the public witness outline above, there is a group within the
Church of England that is determined to allow the remarriage of divorcees in
church. This public shift in the position of the Church requires an
explanation. The public is entitled to know on what basis the Church has
changed its position. Was the Church wrong in the past not to allow the
remarriage of divorcees in church? The bishops need to explain how is it
possible for the Church, which in the past took such a strong public stand
against the remarriage of divorcees in church, to claim in the 1990s that such
remarriages are in line with the teaching of Christ.
Return to top of page
Endnotes
Chapter
11. Confusion over remarriage
1.
Church Assembly. Report of proceedings. London, 1967, p268-71.
2.
Marriage, divorce and the church: The report of the commission on the Christian
doctrine of marriage. (The Root report 1971), London, SPCK 1971,
Introduction, pxi.
3.
Ibid. p3.
4.
Ibid. p36.
5.
Ibid. p38.
6.
Ibid. pp71-2.
7.
Ibid. p72.
8.
General Synod. Report of proceedings. London, Church House, February 1972, p77.
9.
Ibid. p80.
10.
Ibid. pp81-3.
11.
Ibid. pp83-4.
12.
Ibid. p 86.
13.
Ibid. p93.
14.
Ibid. p98.
15.
General Synod. Report of proceedings, November 1974, p 814.
16.
Marriage and the Church’s Task. 1978, pp78-9.
17.
Ibid. p85.
18.
Ibid. p90.
19.
Ibid. p90.
20.
Ibid. p100.
21.
Ibid. p110.
22.
Results of the Reference to the Diocesan Synod 1979-1980, p5.
23.
General Synod. Report of proceedings, February 1981, p87.
24.
Ibid. p89.
25.
Ibid. p90.
26.
General Synod. Report of proceedings, July 1981, p800.
27.
Ibid. p821.
28.
Ibid. p822.
29.
Ibid. p823.
30.
Ibid. p824.
31.
Ibid. pp824-26.
32.
Ibid. pp832-33.
33.
Ibid. p835.
34.
Ibid. p838.
35.
Ibid. p844.
36.
Ibid. p846.
37.
Marriage – and the Standing Committee’s Task. (GS 571). London, CIO
Publishing, April 1983.
38.
Ibid. p4.
39.
Ibid. p53.
40.
General Synod. Report of proceedings, July 1983, pp431-36.
41.
Ibid. p446.
42.
Ibid. pp448-49.
43.
Ibid. p453.
44.
Report from the House of Bishops. (GS 616), March 1984.
45.
Ibid.
46.
General Synod. Report of proceedings, 1984, p291.
47.
Ibid. pp299-302.
48.
Ibid. p303.
49.
Report of the House of Bishops. (GS 634), 1984.
50.
Marriage in church after divorce. (GS 633).
51.
Diocesan Synods response to draft marriage regulations, 1985.
52.
House of Bishops’ report. (GS 669), 1985.
53.
General Synod. Report of proceedings, 1985, pp204-6.
54.
Ibid. pp207-10.
55.
Ibid. pp214-15.
56.
General Synod. Report of proceedings, 1994, pp902-3.
57.
Ibid. p913.
58.
Ibid. p933.
59.
Marriage. A teaching document from the House of Bishops of the Church
of England, London, Church House Publishing, 1999, p7.
60.
Ibid. p9.
61.
Ibid. p14-15.
62.
John Keble. Sequel of the Argument against immediately repealing the laws
which treat the nuptial bond as indissoluble. Oxford, Parker, 1857,
pp204-5.
63.
Divorce: Report of the Lower House of the Convocation of York, p50.
64.
Marriage in Church after Divorce. A discussion document from a Working
Party commissioned by the House of Bishops of the Church of England, London,
Church House Publishing, 1999, pp17-18.
65.
Ibid. p19.
66.
Ibid. p23-4.
67.
Ibid. p12.
68.
Ibid. p13.
69.
Ibid. p45.
70.
Ibid. pp46-7.
71. A.F.
Smethurst and H.R. Wilson. Acts of the Convocations of Canterbury and York.
pp90-1.
72. Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury. The
problems of marriage and divorce. London, SPCK, 1955, p21.
|