The
failure of the Protestant doctrine of divorce
Chapter
21 from The Great Divorce Controversy by ES Williams
We
have uncovered the ideas that allowed divorce to spread like a plague across the
social landscape of England and America. Few can doubt that the secularisation
of marriage and the move to mass divorce are among the most important changes
that have occurred in these countries during the 20th century. No analysis of
the serious social problems so prevalent in society – such as teenager violence,
juvenile crime, illicit drugs and extramarital births – can be complete without
taking account of the effects of mass divorce. Yet it appears that in both
England and America the easy acceptance of no-fault divorce has settled the
controversy and done away with the need for debate.
England’s road to
divorce
England occupies a unique position in the history of divorce. It is the only
country to have gained the benefits of the Reformation, while at the same time
rejecting the Protestant doctrine of divorce and so retaining a belief in the
indissolubility of the marriage bond. One of the great triumphs of the
Christian faith was its stabilising influence on English family life following
the Reformation. Over the centuries the Church of England developed a marriage
discipline that brought enormous blessing to the nation. Society was transformed
as everyone – believers and unbelievers alike – accepted the biblical truth that
marriage was a permanent union, only broken by death. The marriage service,
based on the words of Christ, became a part of English culture and a clear
witness to the lifelong nature of the marriage bond. The words of the ceremony
were ingrained into the national conscience and there was no doubt about their
truth. Everyone, with few exceptions, believed that the marriage bond,
solemnised in the presence of God, was for better, for worse, until death.
Marriage was a serious matter of religious significance – a symbol of the union
between Christ and his Church, and therefore indissoluble. The Church taught
this belief consistently from pulpits across the land, and most of the country
accepted the obvious biblical truth that marriage was lifelong.
As long
as the Church witnessed faithfully to this eternal truth its teaching had great
authority, helping to sustain family stability even among those who did not
follow the Christian faith. Innumerable couples made their marriage vows in the
Church of England, accepting that they were married for life, and this brought
great stability to the English home. The Church’s teaching on the lifelong
indissoluble nature of marriage was the salt that preserved family life. The
Bishop of Salisbury, in his speech to the House of Lords in 1857, noted that the
providential grace of God had preserved England from the curse of divorce.1
Consequently, in 19th century England divorce did not enter into the thinking of
the ordinary man; the people’s minds were settled and secure in the idea of one
wife for life. Any notion that a man could exchange his wife was unthinkable.
This view of marriage was in sharp distinction to that of Protestant Europe
where the idea of divorce was inexorably spreading through the population.
The
divorce debate of 1857 was a watershed in that it introduced the idea of divorce
to the English nation. At this crucial time the difference of opinion among the
bishops in the House of Lords was significant. It prevented the Church from
speaking with a united voice, some arguing that marriage was indissoluble,
others (who accepted the Protestant doctrine of divorce) arguing that divorce
was permissible for adultery. So the public witness of the Church against
divorce was divided. Those, like the Bishop of London, who believed marriage was
dissolved by adultery, felt obliged to side with the secular humanists in the
campaign to legalise divorce. The dominant view among the clergy, however, was
firmly against divorce. Nine thousand clergy had signed a petition against the
Act and many felt that the bishops had not faithfully represented the views of
the Church. The people had no appetite for divorce for they still believed
marriage to be a lifelong union. Consequently, the number of divorces that
followed the Act was very small. Nevertheless, the fact that divorce was now
available placed it on the national agenda, and offered encouragement to those
who wanted divorce to become yet more widely available.
A key
point to emerge from the debate was the difference in position between the
leadership and the grassroots of the Church. The bishops were reluctant openly
to support the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage. On the other hand,
the clergy and laity were continually pressing the bishops to speak out clearly
so that everyone would know where the Church stood. On many occasions the
clergy and laity pressed for a statement from the bishops to clarify the
Church’s position on marriage, divorce and remarriage, but the bishops avoided
this for they did not want to say anything that might endanger the link between
Church and state. They were reluctant to criticise the divorce laws passed by
Parliament, and did not want conflict between state and Church. They were also
very aware of the sentiment within the liberal establishment that wanted more
liberal divorce laws. So the bishops tried to placate the secular world while
at the same time remaining faithful to the teaching of Christ. But they could
only maintain this balancing act with compromise and fudge. A classic example
of the fudge was the statement at the end of the 19th century from the Upper
House of Canterbury Convocation that claimed that the teaching of Christ on
divorce and remarriage was ambiguous and therefore they were unable to make a
clear statement. It said, ‘In regard of the question of remarriage, the
teaching of Holy Scripture cannot be pronounced to be perfectly clear.’2 In 1896, although a committee of the Lower House of York
Convocation reached a unanimous view that marriage was indissoluble, it
received no support from the House of Bishops.
During
the first part of the 20th century liberal theologians argued that as the
teaching on divorce was so difficult to understand, it was impossible to be sure
what Christ really meant. Because Christ’s teaching was ambiguous they
supported the arguments of the secular humanists for extending the grounds for
divorce. They argued that Christ laid down, not a definite law, but an ‘ideal’
for marriage, that few could attain. They did not agree with the view that the
Church must regard marriage as indissoluble. Rather, they believed that the
state was right in granting divorce under certain circumstances. They accepted
that adultery, desertion and other factors, which caused the purposes of
marriage to be defeated, were grounds for divorce. This attack on the
indissolubility of marriage by a few liberal theologians undermined the Church’s
witness, and provided a massive boost to the divorce campaign.
In the
1930s the Church committed the cardinal error of deciding that Christ’s teaching
on marriage was meant only for Christians. It decided not to try and impose his
teaching on the whole of society, and not to oppose any ‘reasonable extension’
to the grounds for divorce. Underlying this concession was the inference that
it would be better for society not to be constrained by the harsh sayings of
Christ. This line of reasoning accepted that it was possible for the state to
improve the divorce laws for the benefit of the majority by disregarding
biblical teaching. The church leadership was behaving in a way that suggested
that they were ashamed of the gospel of Christ, and unwilling to take a stand on
the truth of Christ’s words in the councils of men. The report, Putting
Asunder, commissioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Ramsey) in 1963,
contended that the Church’s advice to the state should not be based ‘upon
doctrines that only Christians accept, but upon premises that enjoy wide
acknowledgement in the nation as a whole’.3 The report argued that biblical
standards were not applicable to the majority of the nation. Because biblical
morality applied only to Christians, and not to the nation, the state was
justified in giving the people the divorce laws they wanted, free from any moral
restraint. The presumption was that the state, guided by the principles of
secular humanism, was able to make more humane laws than a law based on the
words of Christ. But the notion that Christ’s teaching was only for Christians,
and not for all people, failed to grasp the truth of the Church’s prophetic
ministry to the nation. In his speech to the General Synod, the Rev Henry
Cooper reminded the Church of its prophetic ministry. He said the Church did
not believe in two standards, one for mere human beings and one for Christians.
The gospel was not meant to be preached to Christians only, but to all people.4 The Bishop of London (Leonard) reminded the Church that the
institution of marriage was not merely for Christians, though Christians are
given the grace to fulfil it. He said, ‘We believe that it is an institution
given by God in creation and we therefore have the responsibility in this matter
to speak to all men.’5
The
permissive 1960s saw a major change in the way society at large viewed
marriage. It was during this period of increasing moral decline that Putting
Asunder provided the justification for the irretrievable breakdown of
marriage. It claimed that marriages could die – and when a marriage was dead,
divorce was the sensible option. During the permissive era cohabitation became
increasingly popular and traditional marriage was seen as an outdated and
oppressive institution. Illegitimate births increased at an alarming rate, and
in the late 1970s the British Government removed the stigma of illegitimacy,
thereby indicating society’s approval of the single-parent family.
The
growing acceptance of secular marriage was accompanied by a sharp decline in the
proportion of church marriages. In The Proposal, a report of the Labour
Party’s think-tank, Demos, society was blatantly encouraged to think of marriage
in purely secular terms. It proposed that the marriage vows should not
necessarily express a lifelong intention. The essence of The Proposal
was that the marriage contract needed to be renegotiated after an agreed period,
and that serial marriage should be encouraged.6
The remarriage of
divorcees in the Church of England
At
the dawn of the 21st century the Church of England is engaged in the final great
struggle over the marriage question. Divorce is now so widespread, that there
is a feeling that the Church should do something to show that it cares for those
who have been hurt by it. Accordingly, the Church is seriously considering a
change in marriage discipline that will allow divorcees, who have a former
partner living, to remarry in church. Those who oppose the remarriage of
divorcees in church are portrayed as lacking in compassion.
The
remarriage question is crucial to the public witness of the Church. At stake is
nothing less than Christ’s teaching on marriage. Without doubt, the most
powerful public witness to the lifelong nature of marriage is the refusal of the
Church to remarry divorced persons. By this discipline the world knows that
Christ taught that divorce is morally wrong and that marriage is a lifelong
union. Therefore a person cannot remarry while a former spouse is living.
Jesus told his disciples that this teaching would cause offence to the world and
that many would not accept it. Nevertheless, the early Church witnessed
faithfully to the truth of Christ’s teaching. The civilised world came to
understand that marriage, as ordained by God, was lifelong and remarriage was
not permitted. The message was clear, simple, absolute, and easy to
understand. It had great authority and exerted a powerful influence on society.
Everyone knew that the Church of Christ did not permit remarriages under any
circumstances at all, and most accepted the wisdom of his teaching. However,
the spirit of the age opposes the teaching of Christ and yearns after temporary
marriage and the convenience of remarriages.
When the
divorce controversy was at its peak in 1896, an article in the Church
Quarterly Review argued that the Church of England should retain its law
forbidding the remarriage of divorced persons. ‘Careful study of the evidence
within our reach and a full consideration of the recent controversies in England
make us to be unhesitatingly convinced that the law of Christ laid down in Holy
Scripture, committed to Christians, and defined and administered by the Church,
affirms the absolute indissolubility of Christian marriage. Nor are we less
convinced that any recognition by churchmen of the possibility of “marriage”
after divorce must have an injurious effect upon Christian morality. Marriage
is at the very centre of human life. It cannot be touched without affecting
what is of highest importance to the individual and the race. Christian
theology has taught us to see in it the creation of an objective bond, the
setting up of a relation which no subsequent events can destroy. To overturn
this belief is to imperil the safeguards of family life, the protection of
woman’s honour, the restraints which the best mortals sometimes need. Without
it, it is hard to see what may become of distinctions which make the difference
between acts that are lawful and gross sins real.’7
In 1955
Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher said that the Church was right to exclude from
marriage in church all, without exception, who have a former partner still
living. He argued that because marriage is a social institution, a church
service is an official act of the Church carrying its whole authority. ‘The
Church has a 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 solemnization of marriage without compromising its witness. If
the Church were to marry divorced persons there would be no way left in which it
could bear effective witness before the world to the standard of Christ, for
there is no other official or formal act which would give it the opportunity.’8
While
Archbishop Fisher did not condemn remarriage outright, he did warn against
church remarriages. ‘Let me say quite frankly that in some cases where a first
marriage has ended in tragedy, a second marriage has, by every test of the
presence of the Holy Spirit that we are able to recognise, been abundantly
blessed. For this reason I do not find myself able to forbid good people who
come to me for advice to embark on a second marriage.’ He explained the Lord’s
teaching to those who approached him seeking remarriage, and told them that it
was their duty to decide before God what they should do. He reminded them that
if they remarry, they would never again be able to bear a full and clear witness
to the Lord’s declaration of marriage as an indissoluble bond. ‘But that does
not mean that the Church should marry them. They would then be asking the
Church to compromise the one way in which it can give a clear testimony to our
Lord’s standard for their sakes.’ So it is their private responsibility, and if
they seek marriage, it must be by a civil ceremony without trying to involve the
Church in the act. ‘Thus if they feel denial of a church marriage to be a cross
of suffering, they should bear it for the Church, so that it may not, in its
official acts of marrying, compromise the standard entrusted to it by the Lord,
to defend which is the Church’s essential duty. I have hardly ever found anyone
who is not responsive to this line of argument and who does not find in it a
real spiritual and moral strength and consolation.’9
In his
book Divorce and Remarriage, Andrew Cornes gives a clear explanation of
why remarriage is wrong. ‘Those who are married have entered into a lifelong
union. They promise this solemnly at their marriage. And whether they realise
it at the time or not, God joined them together as one flesh. This marriage
lasts until death; legal divorce does not undo it. And it is for this reason
rather than any other – it is because they are still married – that Christians
are unable to support them in any second marriage.’10 He advises that the Church should explain to those seeking a
second marriage that the reason they cannot be remarried in church is because
Christ said that marriage is for life. Cornes believes that nothing less than
this kind of explanation does justice to Christ’s teaching. The Church is
called to bear witness to his truth.
At the
heart of the remarriage debate is the public witness of the Church. To allow
remarriages in church is to damage the witness of the Church to the lifelong
nature of marriage. This point cannot be made too strongly – to allow church
remarriage is to publicly repudiate the teaching of Christ. The Church would be
saying that Christ was wrong when he called remarriage adultery.
Selective remarriage
in church
The
promoters of church remarriage claim that it will be selective, only for those
who are deemed to be ‘deserving’ cases, or in the old parlance, the ‘innocent’
party. The sharp logic of Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher identified the problems
associated with this approach. He argued that to make exceptions for those who
were ‘deserving’ of a church remarriage would raise a number of unanswerable
questions. ‘On what principles should the exceptions be made? Only for those
where the partner was divorced for adultery? Or for any cause? Only for the
innocent? But in this case how shall innocence be judged and what be its
standard? Moreover, it would be impossible for the Church to satisfy public
opinion that in each case the granting of the exception was justified, and not
influenced by weakness, or wealth, or social status, or some other unworthy
reason.’11
Fisher wrote his objections to remarriage before the era of no-fault divorce.
How is it now possible to establish the true reasons for divorce when the couple
claims that the marriage has irretrievably broken down? Lord Denning said in a
debate in the House of Lords that the divorce courts did not even attempt to
establish innocence or guilt.12
How, therefore, could the Church possibly do so?
There is
yet another unanswerable question for those who promote church remarriage. How
many times can a person be remarried in church? Once, twice or several times?
And on what principle is the decision made? A discussion document on remarriage
from the working party of the House of Bishops recommends that ‘neither of the
partners should have been married more than once’.13 But why only one remarriage? It is well known that
remarriages have a greater chance of failing than first marriages. It therefore
seems unduly harsh that couples should be denied the possibility of seeking
happiness in a third marriage. If a person who has divorced once is allowed to
remarry, on what grounds is the person who has divorced twice denied this right?
Which of the arguments advanced by those in favour of church remarriage do not
apply also to a second remarriage? Surely the argument that the Church should
show compassion to divorcees, applies even more to those who have experienced
several divorces? The argument of grace must surely mean that a person can be
forgiven for any number of divorces, and allowed any number of remarriages. Or
is the grace to forgive limited to only one divorce? The rule of ‘only one
remarriage’ is nonsense. It means that the second marriage, but not the first,
is seen as indissoluble and therefore no third marriage is possible. The
impossible dilemma of how many remarriages in church are permissible is not
difficult to see. Clearly, the ‘only one remarriage in church’ rule is
arbitrary and not based on any biblical principle.
So the
Church of England is on the horns of a dilemma. It can try to apply the
discipline of selective remarriage, a discipline that has proved unworkable in
the Methodist and American Episcopal Churches. However, it is well known that
such a discipline has been discredited because it leads to widespread injustice
and dissatisfaction. For centuries the Protestant doctrine of divorce has
sought to find a satisfactory way of dealing with the remarriage of ‘deserving’
divorcees, but has failed to produce a credible formula. It is unlikely that
the Church of England is about to discover some hidden mystery that will justify
the remarriage of ‘deserving’ divorcees that is consistent with the teachings of
Christ. Should the Church choose to go the way of selective remarriage, the
moral weakness of its position will soon become apparent to all.
It does
not take a lot of insight to realise that selective church remarriage, granted
only in ‘deserving’ cases, is but the thin edge of the wedge. Breach the
principle and the floodgates will open. The assurances of those who promote
remarriage mean nothing. They will certainly not be satisfied with only a
handful of ‘deserving’ cases. Arguments for extension are inevitable, for once
the principle of church remarriage is accepted, there will be nothing to stop a
move to indiscriminate remarriage. Before long the flaws in the selective
approach will become evident, and the cry will be for the unlimited remarriage
of divorcees in the Church of England. Already the Methodist Church has
demonstrated that selective remarriage is unworkable in practice and moved on to
unlimited remarriage. The introduction of selective remarriage is only the
first step in the campaign to achieve the remarriage of all divorcees in the
Church of England. Should this happen, the Church’s witness to the lifelong
nature of marriage will be dead.
The fresh start theory
Many
who now support remarriage do so because they claim that God’s grace allows a
divorced person to make a fresh start. The very fact that divorce is so common
proves that marriages die, and the Church must respond to the needs of those who
have experienced the death of their marriage—it should help those who have met
with failure and disappointment and not slam the door in their faces.
Fortunately, the Church has finally discovered that God’s grace allows divorcees
to be forgiven past mistakes, such as marrying the wrong person, and make a
fresh start in a new marriage.
The basic
flaw in this argument is that it is based on a distorted view of the nature and
character of God. While emphasizing God’s grace and love, it ignores his holy
character. The prophet Habakkuk describes the holiness of God: ‘Your eyes are
too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong’ (Habakkuk 1:13). And
central to God’s holiness is his moral law, revealed through the Law and
Prophets and through the life of Christ, and implanted in the heart of man.
According to the New Testament, ‘the law is holy, and the commandments holy, and
righteous and good’ (Romans 7:12). Because God cannot tolerate wrongdoing and
moral evil, Christian believers will do all they can to keep the moral law of
God.
Fresh
start teaching, however, implies that God’s grace overturns his moral law. The
inference is that God – because he is gracious and merciful – will overlook the
clear teaching of Jesus that ‘anyone who divorces his wife and marries another
woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries
another man, she commits adultery.’ The idea that God will condone remarriage
is fundamentally wrong, for it disregards God’s moral law––the standard by which
we ought to live and by which we will be judged. We have already seen that the
God of the Bible hates divorce because it breaks the marriage covenant of
lifelong faithfulness between husband and wife. The suggestion that God’s
grace condones divorce, and permits a fresh start by remarriage to ‘another man’
or ‘another woman’ is anathema to God’s moral law. Jesus said, ‘If anyone loves
me, he will obey my teaching... He who does not love me will not obey my
teaching’ (John 14:23, 24).
At the
heart of the Christian gospel is the message of salvation from sin. The
Christian gospel makes it absolutely plain that the sin of the divorcee – like
the sin of all those who truly repent and turn to Christ – can be forgiven. The
gospel message is for the broken-hearted and the vilest of sinners. But the
consequences of the divorce remain, even after the sin that lies behind divorce
has been forgiven. As we have already seen, divorce does not break the marriage
bond for the divorced person is still a part of the family created by marriage
and has numerous family relationships that, although damaged by divorce, are
lifelong. There is no doubt that God wants these relationships to be restored.
What, then, is the moral duty of a divorced husband or wife who confesses their
sin and receives forgiveness through the grace of God? When a Christian wife is
forgiven, her clear responsibility is to put right the wrongs she has done to
her husband and children, and to ‘be reconciled to her husband’ for she knows
that the Bible says that ‘a wife must not separate from her husband’ (1
Corinthians 7:10,11). Likewise the Christian husband should seek to be
reconciled with his estranged wife. So the forgiveness of God makes
reconciliation possible and restores the family relationships that have been
damaged by divorce.
Another
problem with fresh start theory is the suggestion that God’s grace allows the
divorcee to benefit from his or her sin. But this is to profoundly
misunderstand the gospel of grace. As an example, take the man who breaks God’s
moral law by stealing his neighbour’s car. Although the thief can be freely
forgiven if he repents and confesses his sin, does that mean that he is morally
entitled to keep the car? Does God’s forgiveness allow the thief to benefit
from his sin? Of course not! The repentant thief is required to make
restitution, to return the stolen goods to their rightful owner, and to face the
legal consequences of his theft. He also wants to make restitution for he knows
that it is the right thing to do. He cannot make a fresh start while driving
his neighbour’s car. In the same way, the forgiven divorcee cannot continue in
the sin that led to the divorce. He cannot desert his wife and children to
remarry another woman. He is required to restore the family relationships that
his actions have broken and to be reconciled to his wife and children.
And
finally, how many fresh starts is a person permitted? On what grounds can the
fresh start theory deny a person a second, third or fourth remarriage? Indeed,
as God’s grace is unlimited, surely this theory demands an unlimited number of
remarriages for those who wish to start again and again. Moreover, the fresh
start theory is open to the most cynical abuse. It provides encouragement to
the husband or wife who desires to be rid of a spouse in order to marry another
person. How easy it is for a husband or wife to say that their marriage is
dead, to divorce, claim forgiveness, and qualify for a church remarriage. And
all this, it is claimed, is permitted because of God’s grace and compassion.
The real
significance of the fresh start theory is that it shows how the modern
proponents of remarriage have abandoned the discredited arguments of the
Protestant reformers about marital offences and the right of the ‘innocent’
party to remarry. But at least those arguments had some semblance of scriptural
support; the advocates of the fresh start theory make no pretence of scriptural
support, but rather base their belief on an incomplete view of the character God
and the vague notion that a gracious God must allow a fresh start. We would do
well to remember that the God of the Bible said, ‘I hate divorce.’
America and the Protestant doctrine of divorcetc
"America and the
Protestant doctrine of divorce"
The
road to mass divorce in America was very different from that taken by England.
Throughout most of its history, the English Church has stood for the
indissolubility of marriage, while the American Christian tradition has always
favoured divorce. The strong Protestant influence meant that from the earliest
times the American mindset was sympathetic to the desire for divorce and
remarriage. In chapter 3, we saw how great reformers such as Luther, Calvin,
Zwingli and Bucer concluded that the Bible permitted divorce for adultery and
desertion, among other things. They taught that marriage was a secular thing,
and attacked the sacramental view of marriage; their followers were encouraged
to see marriage as a purely civil contract. Colonial America provided the
perfect opportunity for the Reformation theories on marriage and divorce to be
put into practice.
Adherents
of the Protestant faith were determined that the traditional view of marriage
taught by the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches would not gain ground in
America. The Puritans of New England vehemently opposed the sacramental view
of marriage, heavily emphasizing the civil nature of the marriage contract. For
a time they did not permit church weddings, insisting that the ceremony had to
be conducted by a civil magistrate. Marriage, as Luther had said, was a worldly
thing. This insistence on the secularisation of marriage had long-term
consequences for the way American society came to view marriage. Charles Thwing,
in his 19th century analysis of the American family, highlighted the link
between Reformation thought and the notion that marriage was a purely secular
contract. In his opinion the secularisation of marriage formed the basis of
American divorce legislation.14
Over the
passage of time, Protestant thought allowed divorce for causes other than
adultery and most extensions of the grounds for divorce in America were made
with the tacit agreement of the Protestant tradition. Even when, in the 20th
century, divorce numbers were growing at an alarming rate, the Protestant
denominations were not prepared to make any fundamental change to their
theological support for divorce. The tragedy of the Protestant position was
that it helped to undermine marriage in the eyes of society, and especially
American society, where it exerted great influence. It failed to understand the
link between marriage and the family, and to acknowledge that divorce breaks
families, causing unbearable suffering to children. Protestant teaching made
divorce respectable, providing the moral platform for the mass divorce
movement. Today the Protestant tradition is helpless in its witness against
mass divorce, and is in confusion over the issue of remarriage; each
denomination having its own rules, which change from time to time, and are not
understood by the average person. Protestant denominations, such as the
Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists, who teach
that Christ allows divorce and remarriage, have failed to recognise the
far-reaching consequences of their teachings for society.
The
American obsession with secular marriage has meant that many weddings take place
without a religious ceremony. The popular view that marriage is a civil
contract, not unlike many other contracts, has led to the loss of its religious
significance. For many there was no commitment to marriage as a lifelong
union—it was something entered into lightly and easily deserted. This low view
of marriage encouraged the belief that divorce was necessary to help people
achieve further chances of happiness. Accordingly, the American debate has
always concentrated on identifying the right grounds for divorce. When the
Bishop of Albany, William Doane, spoke of the shame of the divorce habit in
America at the beginning of the 20th century, he hoped to reduce the causes for
divorce, ‘if not to the one only possible scriptural exception, at least to
only six causes at the outside’.15 There was no belief in the Church that divorce was against
the teaching of Christ and therefore morally wrong. When the divorce numbers
were growing at an alarming rate, the Church was unable to offer any real
guidance to society, and was glad to leave the arena to the sociologists and
psychologists. It is not surprising that at the turn of the 20th century the
American rate of divorce was so much higher than that of England.
The ideological battle
over the meaning of marriage
The
battle over marriage has been a battle between the ideas of biblical
Christianity and secular humanism. While the biblical view was firmly defended
by the Church, the secular humanist view, which held that marriage was a
man-made contract that lasted only so long as it suited the couple, was unable
to make any progress. Those who followed the words of Christ taught that
divorce was always wrong, whereas the secular humanists maintained that divorce
was a valuable resource for dealing with unsuitable marriages. These opposing
arguments were at the heart of the parliamentary debates. As long as the
Church of England was clear about what the Scriptures taught about marriage and
divorce, and stood firm on these beliefs, then the nation at large was guided by
the Word of God and the pleadings of secular humanism were unable to stand
against the force of biblical truth. When the Church compromised the teaching
of Christ, the ideas of secular humanism were ready to step into the breach
created by the retreat of the Church. With each step backwards from the
doctrine of marriage indissolubility, the campaign for the promotion of free
divorce gained ground. A confounding factor in the struggle was the Protestant
doctrine of divorce, which occupied a position halfway between the two views
outlined above. The Protestants, in fact, wanted a little bit of divorce. The
effect of their teaching was to undermine the absolute position that the
marriage bond was indissoluble save by death, and it brought comfort to the
secular humanists for it meant that those who claimed to speak for the Christian
faith were divided, unable to agree on what Christ had taught about marriage.
Consequently, the Christian witness was seriously undermined, leaving the field
open to the arguments of the secular humanists.
At a
deeper spiritual level, the great divorce controversy has been, in reality, an
intense battle over the nature and meaning of marriage. Is marriage a civil
contract that can be terminated for certain reasons, or an indissoluble union of
which God is the author? Underlying the divorce debate is a spiritual war of
immense proportions, which the apostle Paul alluded to in his letter to the
Ephesians. ‘For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the
rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and
against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realm’ (Ephesians 6:12).
Behind the divorce controversy are the powers and authorities of this dark world
that are seeking to destroy the institution of marriage as ordained by God. As
in the Garden of Eden, a subtle question has been asked, ‘Did Jesus really say
that divorce is wrong?’ The importance of the spiritual battle cannot be
overemphasised. It is not an obscure theological debate over the
indissolubility of marriage, but an attack on the divine institution of
marriage. What we have studied is a rebellion against God’s plan for marriage
that is having enormous consequences for the whole of society. The struggle
over the meaning of marriage, which has intensified during the last three
decades, involves everyone and affects the whole of Western society. Those who
follow the gospel of Christ, whether they like it or not, are involved in a
spiritual war of immense proportions, and it is no longer acceptable for
Christians to sit on the sidelines, avoiding what many see as a controversial
and difficult subject. Committed Christians have a responsibility to become
involved in the battle over the meaning of marriage. Those who adhere to the
Protestant view of divorce need to explain why their beliefs have led them to
side with the forces of secular humanism in the campaign to achieve the freedom
of divorce. We must challenge the false ideas that have become so prevalent,
and witness to the truth of biblical teaching. We need to understand what is a
stake, the significance of the battle.
A crisis of family
breakdown
In
the first chapter we saw that the idea that the traditional family was in a
state of serious decline was a matter of controversy, with some arguing that the
family was simply changing. The evidence shows that millions of children,
because of their parents’ divorces and because of the increasing numbers of
births to unmarried women, are now growing up outside a stable family home.
Millions have lost meaningful contact with their fathers, and are growing up
without the care, discipline and love that only he can provide. The idea that
children do not need a father has proved to be a cruel deception. The hurt for
these children is profound, and many still suffer the effects as they grow into
adulthood.
Both
England and America are rapidly becoming societies in which the numbers of
fatherless children are counted by the millions, and both countries are
beginning to reap the social consequences. The decline in discipline among
young people, the increasing rates of violent juvenile crime, the burgeoning use
of illicit drugs, the growth in underage sex and illegitimate teenager births
that cause so much despair and concern, are all symptoms of the instability that
results from widespread family breakdown. We read daily in our newspapers of
human tragedies caused by divorce and broken homes; we read of husbands who
assault their former wives and, recently, of a divorced father who burnt himself
and his children to death in a car rather than face life without his children;
we read of divorced mothers who are abused, assaulted and sometimes murdered by
their lovers. There is an enormous growth in violent behaviour among very young
children, most of whom come from unstable family situations. We read daily
about children from so-called reconstituted families who are abused in the most
appalling ways by their mothers’ boyfriends. While society has been busy
entrenching the right to easy no-fault divorce, it has been indifferent to what
divorce is doing to children. Undoubtedly, the shocking behaviour of many young
people is a cry for help to an adult world that does not want to hear about
their plight and would like to believe that there is no family breakdown
crisis.
Reaffirming the Christian view of marriage
One
of the great triumphs of the Christian faith was its influence on marriage and
family life. The witness of the early church to Christ’s teaching on the
lifelong nature of marriage, by word and deed, had a powerful effect on all who
heard the message. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, explained
how the teaching of Christ revolutionised the way society thought of marriage.
‘It routed the whole practice of the contemporary world. It created a new
belief in monogamous lifelong marriage as a duty to God, and imposed it upon its
members and in the end on the civilised world. Surely the impetus for such an
assault and victory must have come from our Lord. It could not have happened
otherwise. It is not therefore surprising that the Church in the West has put
such an emphasis on the lifelong and indissoluble character of marriage.
Plainly the thing of lasting importance is to preserve this victory of Christ.’16
The
question that we must now face is—can the current trend in mass divorce be
changed? Is it possible for England and America to turn away from mass
divorce? Can marriages be preserved so that children will grow up in families
in which they are cared for and disciplined by both their father and mother?
Can the Church again influence the way society thinks about marriage? The
answer to these questions depends upon the Church’s witness on marriage and
divorce. If the Church fails to take a moral lead and speak the words of Christ
to society without compromise, then it is inevitable that the present situation
will continue and England and America will reap the consequences of mass
divorce. Let us not make the mistake of believing that God is indifferent to
the current situation, for God will judge the nations in righteousness and
truth.
If the
Church acknowledges its failure to witness to the biblical meaning of marriage,
and resolves once again to teach Christ’s words on marriage, then society can be
transformed. There is no doubt that many people are longing for moral guidance
from the Word of God, for they have suffered deeply and know in their hearts
that there is a better way. The Church is responsible to preach and teach God’s
truth with regard to marriage. As people come to accept the truth that marriage
is a lifelong union ordained by God they will understand why Christ said that
divorce is morally wrong. The popular idea that mass divorce is an aspect of
modern society that cannot be changed is a cruel deception spread by those who
seek to undermine the biblical view of marriage and the family. The trend in
mass divorce can be reversed just as soon as the Christian Church returns to
sound teaching on the subject. Christians of all traditions have a
responsibility to be God’s witnesses to the sanctity and permanence of marriage,
and to live by these truths. We need to make it clear that God’s plan for
marriage, instituted at Creation, is for the good of all.
God calls
his people to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Christians
are commanded to proclaim God’s gospel to the world, including the moral law by
which all people ought to live. We have been entrusted with God’s truth, and we
must prove faithful. Christian people cannot remain silent in the face of mass
divorce that is wreaking havoc with people’s lives. We must make a major effort
to reaffirm to all in society God’s plan for marriage, exhorting all to accept
the fundamental importance of marriage and the family. If we do so, then with
God’s grace and help, the current trend in divorce can be reversed, as society
again accepts that marriage is God’s plan for the good of men, women and
children.
Return to top of page
Endnotes
Chapter 21. Battle over marriage
1. Hansard. Lords debate. 19 May 1857 cc516-21. Bishop of
Salisbury
2. CCC. 1885. Report no. 193, p327.
3. Putting Asunder: A Divorce Law for Contemporary Society:
The Report of a Group appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in January 1964.
London, SPCK, 1966, p3.
4. Rev. H. Cooper. Church Assembly debate, Report of
proceedings, vol. XLVII, no. 1, London, SPCK, February 1967, p246-47.
5. General Synod Proceedings, 1984, pp299-302.
6. Helen Wilkinson. The proposal: giving marriage back to
the people. Demos, 1997, p45.
7. ‘Controversy of Divorce’. The Church Quarterly Review,
January 1896, p439.
8. Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury. The problems
of marriage and divorce. London, SPCK, 1955, p21.
9. Ibid. pp23-4.
10. Andrew Cornes. Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical
Principles and Pastoral Practice. London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1993, p481.
11. Fisher, The problems of marriage and divorce,
pp21-2.
12. Hansard. Lords debate. 30 June 1969. Ibid.
p398-400. Lord Denning
13. 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, 2000. p47.
14. Charles F. Thwing and Carries F. Butler Thwing. The
Family: an historical and social study. Boston, Lothrop Lee, 1913, pp105-7.
15. William Croswell Doane, Bishop of Albany. ‘The Sanctity of
Marriage’, in Pan-Anglican Congress (June 1908: London) Report. London,
SPCK, 1908, vol. p4.
16. Fisher, The problems of marriage and divorce, p9.
|