• Editor's Preface by Lyndsay L. Smith
• Marriage of Divorced Persons by Gordon R. Stirling
• Divorce--Its Implications for Marriage and Re-marriage by Robert V. Smith
• Divorce Is a Dilemma for Christians by Kevin J. Harvey
• The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Marriage by Keith W. Farmer
• Undisciplined Acceptance of Divorce Undermines a Christian Ethic by Colvil L. Smith
• The Marriage of Divorced Persons by Selected Persons of Churches of Christ in Western Australia

      The terms of reference for this Commission were agreed upon after considerable and careful debate at the 38th Federal Conference held at Stanwell Tops in October 1980, attended by representatives of our churches from all States of Australia.

      The Conference resolved--

"That the Federal Conference Executive be requested to establish a Study Commission on divorce, and its implications for marriage and re-marriage, particularly examining:
- the Biblical teaching on divorce;
- the social implications of divorce as they relate to
- the church's caring ministry for people;
- the implications for the church's organisation, leadership and ministry"
                  and,
"That we recommend that the Commission be comprised of qualified representatives from each State."

      The Federal Conference Executive allotted one of its elected members, Mrs Doreen Gordon, of Balwyn Church (Victoria), to the Portfolio for this Commission.

      In consultation with Federal Conference Executive Mrs Cordon sought advice from State Conference Executives in choosing qualified representatives of each State to prepare papers related to the terms of reference set out in the resolution of 38th Federal Conference.

      These papers are now presented for the use of our churches, in whatever ways that may be found. This Report is not intended to define the views of Federal Conference, nor of Federal Conference Executive; it is published as requested and with the hope that the word of God will become clearer to all who read and study the material presented.

      Federal Conference Executive expresses its appreciation to Mrs Gordon, and to all who have worked on this Commission.

Lyndsay L. Smith (Federal Conference Secretary)      
February, 1982      

      The relevant passages are Mark 10:1-12; Matthew 5:31, 32; 19:1-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11 and Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

(a) An interpretation of these passages.

      It needs to be recognised that there was some difference between divorce in the first century and now. A woman had no rights in a divorce situation and normally would be left destitute and in disgrace by it. The husband accepted no responsibility for her.

      She had no custody rights over the children. A man could get an instant divorce by writing a statement "freeing his wife" and by returning the dowry . . . to the wife's family!

      There were two schools of thought in Jesus' day concerning the teaching of Moses on divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which the OT assumes, was given by God to Moses!)

      One was that the "act of indecency" referred to as the cause, was adultery. The other was that "the act of indecency" referred to any offensive behaviour. Hence the question by the Pharisees that gave rise to Jesus' statement.

      Jesus' reply implies three things:

      i) That Moses' ruling on divorce was given because of man's sinful nature ("hardness of heart") which impeded his ability to keep marriage as God intended it . . . inviolable for life.

      ii) That Jesus' contemporaries were using Moses' decree to move out of marriage responsibility for adulterous purposes, rather than as was intended, to bring an end to unworkable marriages.

      iii) That the ideal is a marriage made by God and kept by God so that the partners concerned could stay together in harmony for life.

      The New Testament and the Contemporary Church. The New Testament teaching on divorce has to be considered along with, the rest of the New Testament ethical and practical teaching, in the light of the culture and circumstances of the times. We have to ask ourselves if those teachings are meant to be laws and rules in the same sense as the Old Testament law was to the Jews. Or whether we use the New Testament to discover those great ethical principles that are part of the life style of people who are being saved by grace through faith. There is no doubt that Jesus and Paul were emphasising a number of principles:

      i) the importance of having a responsible attitude to the institution of marriage and the family.

      ii) the importance of the God factor in marriage . . . "whom God has joined together";

      iii) the responsibility that marriage partners have towards each other;

      iv) the self destructiveness and irresponsibility of adulterous behaviour.

      Other relevant New Testament teachings would be those concerning forgiveness and compassion and responsibility for one's brother and sister and neighbour. These principles are relevant to the way in which the church handles, not only the problem, of divorce, but the problems of those people involved in the breaking up of marriages.

      Divorce has become a factor in the life of many churches and has involved leaders and ministers as well as members of churches. The economic, social and religious pressures that once kept even bad marriages intact are no longer as strong, and more people are choosing not to stay in a marriage that they believe has ceased to be one. While the church must always work to maintain the ideal of marriages made and kept by God, she is also committed to ministry to divorced people both in and out of the church.

(a) The Church is committed to caring.

      God-filled Christians are automatically people who care deeply for all other people.

      i) The church has a caring ministry for those whose marriages are breaking down, with tragic consequences for all concerned.

      ii) The church has a caring and supportive ministry during the divorce processes, to both parties, to the children and to other relatives concerned.

      iii) The church has a ministry to divorced people, both to those left devastated by it and those who have used the divorce process for their own selfish ends.

(b) The Church is committed to the doctrine of forgiveness.

      There is no limit to the forgiveness of God towards truly repentant people who seek that forgiveness. The sin is blotted out. In all divorces there must be some sin on both sides contributing to the breakdown of the marriage. And there is the sin of divorce itself. All of this is forgiven by God if there is genuine repentance and acceptance of forgiveness. And as God forgives, so must the church. The implications of this are of course that forgiven divorcees are able to be remarried without being considered to be permanently in an adulterous relationship. For the same reason they should be able to take office in the church.

(c) The Church is committed to reinforcing family life.

      That some Christian marriages break down is often a reflection upon the churches pastoral ministry, not only that of the minister but of the whole congregation. Both by pastoral ministry to families and by teaching, the church has a continuing task to help families to find the resources to make family life more need-fulfilling.

      The church's organisation leadership and ministry should be directed toward encouraging need-fulfilling Christian family life and towards giving a lead in ministering in problem and broken marriages to all concerned.

(a) Organisation.

      There is no way in which the centralised organisation of Churches of Christ can legislate concerning what ministers and local congregations may or may not do in relation to the remarriage of divorced persons. To try to do so would be contrary to our history and tradition. Decisions concerning remarriage of divorced persons must be left to local congregations and to the convictions and consciences of ministers concerned.

      Under the Marriage Act of course, State Conference Executives determine which ministers should be licensed by the Australian Government to perform marriages. So it is conceivable that a State Conference Executive could withdraw the names of ministers who remarried divorced persons. However this would be out of harmony with the intention of the Act end certainly out of harmony with Churches of Christ practice of congregational autonomy. The churches have not given such powers to Conference Executives. The powers have been given by the secular state to be used in harmony with the traditions of the churches concerned.

(b) Leadership and Ministers.

      As far as ministers and remarriage of divorcees is concerned, they must make up their own minds, under God, what they believe is both the intention of scripture in our contemporary situation and what is required of them as pastors and evangelists and forgiven sinners.

      There is still the problem of ministers and church leaders whose marriages break down and who later seek to remarry or who have already remarried. I offer the following four observations:--

      i) The doctrine of ministry traditionally held by Churches of Christ is that the so-called "full time minister" is a minister alongside his fellow ministers with no difference of status, and at least in theory, with no difference of expectations. So it should not be a matter of surprise that there are some breakdowns of marriages of ministers and leaders. In fact the stresses and demands on minister families can often be harder on such marriages than on those of their congregations.

      ii) The Brotherhood organisation should provide a positive, realistic and non-judgemental ministry to ministers and leaders whose marriages end in divorce and who on remarrying wish to continue to minister and may have such ministry denied them.

      iii) The present climate in the church is that large numbers of people, because of conviction, conditioning and strong feeling, cannot accept the divorce and remarriage of ministers and leaders. As this is a fact of life that will not change over night, and as these people stand where they do, not because of obscurantism or conservatism, but because in all honesty they can do no other, it would seem desirable that ministers and leaders involved in the process of divorce and remarriage should withdraw from their ministries at least for a time. There is no point in being a pastor when a significant section of one's congregation cannot have confidence in one's pastoral ministry.

      iv) Because of the doctrine of forgiveness of sins and all of its implications, there should be no bar to various forms of ministry among us, if those who have been divorced and remarried, have in biblical repentance and faith come to the redeeming and renewing experience of the forgiveness of God. However, realism must bring us to the conclusion that at this stage many congregations would find it difficult to handle such ministries . . . because of the same sort of humanness that leads to the breakdown of some minister's marriages.

      Whether we like it or not, we are faced with an enormous problem of marital breakdown. At present the ratio between marriages and divorces is something like one divorce to every three marriages. This brief paper is not able to go into the causes of marital breakdown, but confines itself to acknowledging the enormity of the problem and its implications for the church.

      There was a time when it was thought that rising divorce rates did not affect Christian marriages. Statistics could be quoted that seemed to show that Christians did not suffer from marital problems, as did the unchurched. It would probably be more realistic to say that Christians were subject to greater social pressure, that caused them to endure whatever dysfunction existed, rather than separating.

      Today this social pressure is much less intense, both inside as well as outside the church. Furthermore, the Family Law Act, which requires only one reason for divorce--the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage--and sees the evidence of this as being separation for twelve months, has taken the initiative away from those partners who-would have previously refused divorce. I am sure that in the past many Christians in unhappy relationships refused their partners request for divorce because they believed that in doing so they would be breaking God's law--or perhaps because they did not want to run counter to the strong anti-divorce feeling in the church. Today, such feelings on the part of one spouse cannot prevent the other getting a divorce. As long as one decides to leave and files for divorce the divorce will happen.

      Consequently churches are now confronted with an unprecedented number of members who are, or soon will be, divorcees. Many of them would not have chosen divorce if the initiative to remain married had been open to them. Others, whether rightly or wrongly, felt driven to divorce by the misery of the situation they lived with.

      People like these do not make a cold calculating decision to end a marriage. Irrespective of what contribution they may have made to the marital dysfunction none of us is without fault there), they found themselves caught up in circumstances that they either had no control over, or were unable to cope with.

      Of course there are many other people who decide to divorce without having been reduced to such extremities. I am quite certain that some Christians are amongst this number too.

      Allowing for the differences in the circumstances that bring about divorces, what are we to do? Does the Bible absolutely prohibit any divorce, regardless of the depth, or shallowness, of the circumstances that provoked it? If it does permit divorce, then what of remarriage? Is the unwilling partner in a divorce condemned to a life of loneliness end sexual abstinence?

      Both Jesus and Paul made allowance for divorce. In Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus condemned the practice of divorce as was common amongst the Jews, but made the exception where adultery was concerned. The implication seems to be that sexual infidelity breaks the bond. Indeed, under the Old Testament Law, such infidelity was a capital offence and was to result in the offender's execution, which automatically ended the marriage and left the other party free to remarry.

      In 1 Corinthians 7:15 Paul looks at the situation where a Christian is married to an unbeliever who wants to end the relationship. Paul's advice to the Christian partner is to let the unbelieving partner have what they want.

      Both of these are situations in which one partner is, in a sense, the victim of circumstances. The first is a situation of infidelity; the second desertion. The New Testament makes allowances for both of these. It would seem to me that we could extend this principle to other circumstances in which one partner is placed in an impossible situation e. g. marriages characterised by violence, or extreme mental cruelty, etc. I have no doubt that the New Testament does make provision, in these passages for such people to escape from impossible situations. I also see no reason why these people should be deprived of future happiness by being refused the right to remarry. Both the Matthean and Pauline passages say nothing either way about remarriage. It is at least an open question. Personally I think that justice. and the whole New Testament concept of grace and forgiveness, support the possibility of remarriage in the situations described.

      On the other hand, Christians who divorce as a result of circumstances less extreme, I consider in a different category. I am conscious that may people divorce as a result of dissatisfaction in their relationships, which, while not subjecting them to extreme mental and physical stress, leaves them with a sense of emptiness and unfulfilment. I can understand, but cannot justify divorce in these circumstances.

      I believe that the onus is on Christians to seek whatever help they can to improve their relationships; and there is a lot of help available.

      However, the reality is that Christians are divorcing in order to escape from what they see as unfulfilling relationships, and the church is being confronted by it and the question of their remarriage. I believe that in this event the churches stand is quite clear. Divorce on these grounds is outside the allowances made in the New Testament. I sympathise deeply with those whose relationships are unfulfilling. However I believe that the course of action they should take is to seek whatever help is available to improve their relationships. From personal experience I know that a relationship that seemed absolutely hopeless can become deeply satisfying given sufficient motivation and effort by the respective partners.

      When Christians seek divorce because of lack of satisfaction and fulfilment in the marriage, they are guilty of the very attitude Jesus condemned in Matthew 19:3-12. The question of divorce posed by the Pharisees was based on the popularity of Rabbi Hillel's liberal interpretation of the Mosaic Law of divorce. This interpretation gave a man the right to divorce his wife on virtually any pretext.

      If he was growing tired of her, his dissatisfaction was sufficient cause for divorce. Unfortunately Jewish women didn't have the same privilege extended to them.

      Jesus' opposition to this was primarily to defend the rights of the women who became destitute as a result of such divorces. Jesus here opposed such divorces as being completely contrary to the original purpose of God, and to the Mosaic law which sought to at least, regulate divorce. However Jesus did make allowances for sexual infidelity as a legitimate reason for divorce.

      It seems to me that if Christians see divorce as the best option in the event of an unsatisfactory, though not impossible, relationship, then they are treading dangerously close to the attitude Jesus condemned in this passage. In this event the church, while showing understanding and sympathy, should be firm in its stand that divorce in these circumstances is outside the allowances made in the New Testament.

      This still raises the question about what to do with those members who still go ahead and divorce. The problem is, of course, if they then want to remarry. Should the church remarry them? If they get remarried elsewhere, should they be excommunicated because they are technically living in adultery?

      This is a very delicate point. I believe that God's forgiveness applies to all sins including scripturally unwarranted divorces. If a person or a couple seek God's forgiveness then it should be given by the church as it is by God. It is unrealistic to assume that the second marriage can be annulled, and both return to their former partners. The former relationships are dead. It is now a case of "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more." i. e. accepting that there is a new status quo, that whatever guilt was involved in it is forgiven, and determining not to be guilty again of the failure involved in the previous relationship.

      There is absolutely no doubt that this whole area constitutes a major concern

      for the Church's pastoral care. It is both foolish and downright cruel for the church to hide behind judgmental pronouncements and do nothing to ease the hurt and pain of those involved in marital breakdowns. It has often been said that marital breakdown is the one unpardonable sin in the church. People may get away with idolising their possessions, being greedy and covetous, dishonouring their parents and bearing false witness against their neighbours; but if they should let on that their marriage is in trouble, then they are beyond the pale.

      The churches attitude towards those who are divorced, or contemplating it, should be one of practical compassion. At the local level we should be providing understanding, emotional support and effective counsel. An increasing number of ministers and lay people are receiving training in marriage counselling. Those who do not have such training ought to at least orientate themselves to what their pastoral responsibility should be, and to what resources are available for reference. Some ministers may recognise that counselling is not their gift. Again, they should be aware of the resources available to assist them.

      In New South Wales the Churches of Christ Social Service Department provides a professional Christian Marriage and Family Counselling Service which is available to all churches in various areas. I am happy to say that it is being used increasingly by church members. I am also distressed by the accounts I sometimes receive from deeply troubled church members, who have been subjected to ham-fisted naive counsel by ministers, elders and others who have very little understanding of the problem.

      In addition to this it is essential that churches give a high priority to helping couples enrich their marriages and families. Brian and Joan White, of the Caringbah Church in New South Wales conduct excellent Marriage Enrichment Seminars.

      I myself frequently run Seminars and Camps in areas related to family life and marriage. In addition to this there are a number of other organisations and churches providing marriage encounter and marriage enrichment weekends.

      I have been very pleased to note that many churches are using James Dobson's films about family living. I believe every State Social Service Department should give a high priority to providing this type of service, as well as things like marriage preparation courses. The responsibility then rests heavily on local churches to use these resources.

      Finally it is vital that we extend our pastoral care to those who have been divorced and are now trying to rebuild their lives amidst guilty loneliness and emptiness. There is not space here to go into this in detail except to say that they need much love, support and counsel. Groups for single people, life reconstruction courses, as well as regular pastoral care and counselling are all part of what the church can and should do for them.

      These are people who are hurting deeply. They don't need platitudes. They need loving care understanding and wise counsel. Most of all they need the grace and forgiveness of Jesus Christ. Let's make sure we are the vehicles of this grace, not a barrier to it.

      Divorce, as in the days of Jesus is still a dilemma for Christians! Members of Churches of Christ are often witnesses or participants in the following examples:--

      a) He/she knows more and more couples of all ages who are separating or divorcing, and some are members of the congregation.

      b) He/she sees it happening or hears of it happening to ministers of churches of Christ and ministers of other communions.

      c) He/she is uncertain or ignorant on the biblical position of divorce and therefore take a detached view until it happens very close to home.

      d) He/she is experiencing (or has) the trauma of divorce in their own relationship or with their children, or parents.

      e) He/she is experiencing some unease as increasing numbers of young people live together before marriage to test the relationship in an attempt to avoid a divorce which they see happening to their friends.

      For most of us the first three are more comfortable to debate than the last two points in which ours is a deeply personal involvement.

      Meanwhile ministers of Churches of Christ are more deeply involved in the dilemma.

      a) Theological studies have led ministers to convictions about such matters as divorce. In the local congregation he/she has to weigh these against the pastoral needs of his/her people.

      b) The demands of ministry place a very real pressure on his/her own marriage.

      c) He/she generally carries the responsibility of deciding which weddings he/she will perform.

      d) On what grounds does he/she refuse? If one is a non-believer? If both are? If one or both are agnostic, and acknowledge it openly? If the girl is pregnant? If either or both have had premarital sex (fornication in the scriptures)? What if a couple are already living together? What if one is divorced or both? Does he/she marry Christians only? If so, how does he/she judge? What about those who attend church but are not baptized? Or those who come to church but openly admit their agnosticism? What if a committed member of the congregation asks to be married to a divorcee?

      e) To what degree is a minister 'right' in his/her convictions? How are elders used to help him, or her in these decisions? When are the needs of people more important than the minister's convictions? Where does he/she draw the line between the ideal and the real world?

The Biblical Teaching on Divorce

      Before making some comments on the relevant scripture passages, I acknowledge that my personal understanding is coloured by many factors, not the least being the divorce and remarriage of friends and fellow worshippers in the Kingdom of God, my own marriage, and my own way of perceiving the bible and the world.

      a) Hebrews 13:4 is quite clear and has the unqualified agreement of all Christians. Marriage is to be honoured by all and the Church has not and will not cease in the proclamation of this ideal.

      b) Not many are involved in polygamy so 1 Timothy 3: 2 and 12 need no comment.

      c) Ephesians 5:21-33 is the magnificent ideal of marriage to which we all ascribe and yet so often fail.

      d) 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 seems to imply marriage but could equally apply to a union of business partners. If marriage, then maybe ministers should not perform weddings between believers and non-believers! I have, never trusted my personal judgement on who is and who is not a believer.

      I prefer to leave that judgement as we do with those who seek to participate in the Lord's Supper.

      However, it may be helpful if elders wore more involved in helping ministers to decide who are 'fit' candidates for Christian marriage.

      e) 1 Corinthians 7 is an extremely difficult passage that almost defies exact meanings. Paul appears to be most guarded and defensive in his reply to questions forwarded by the Corinthian Christians. He seems to suggest in verse 1 and 2 that the prevailing immorality of the day was in itself a good reason to marry! Hardly a sound basis for Christian marriage today!

      He also implies that marriage is a second best! In verses 27-28 I wonder if Paul is acknowledging that there are people in the congregation who have been divorced and remarried, even though his advice is not to marry due to the adverse social conditions of the time. Social conditions do not appear to have changed much over the centuries and the second coming must be nearer today I also find it very difficult to accept that single people in the church are more committed to the Lord's work than married people. (verses 32, 33). Paul's answers to questions in this chapter confuse me and probably confused the Corinthians as well.

      He acknowledges that some words are his and some from the Lord.

      In this I can't help comparing his answers with those given today by astute politicians to a reporter on one of our national T.V. current affairs programmes!

      f) The Roman passage (chapter 7) is an illustration of the ideal of marriage applied to the new relationship a believer has in union with his Lord . . . 'no longer do we serve in the old way of a written law but in the new way of the Spirit' (verse 6).

      g) We are left with the teaching of Jesus on divorce. These are recorded in the three synoptic gospels. Matthew 5:31-32; Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18. Before attempting to throw some light on these passages a little background on Jewish marriage and divorce may be helpful.

      i) Jews had a very high concept of marriage. It was a sacred duty.

      ii) The ideal and the practical reality did not go hand in hand.

      iii) Jewish women had no rights. She was first a possession of her father (there is still a hint of this in modern marriage service . . . "who gives this woman . . . ") then she became a possession of her husband. The right to divorce belonged only to the husband.

      iv) Deuteronomy 24:1 states that a Jewish husband could divorce his wife an the grounds of 'some uncleanness' (K.J.V.) or 'because he finds something about her he doesn't like'. (T.E.V.) or after consummating the marriage 'she has not pleased him and he has found some impropriety of which to accuse her'. (Jerusalem Bible).

      The school of Shammai were adamant that the Law referred to fornication. The school of Hillel gave a much wider interpretation in that a husband could divorce his wife for very minor things like speaking to other men in the street. William Barclay suggests that the school of Hillel prevailed and marriage was not taken seriously enough in the days of Jesus.

      Jesus gave his teaching on divorce in reply to some questions from the Pharisees who were attempting to trap him. Would Jesus favour the strict school or the laxer school of thought?--Both Mark and Luke report Jesus as saying that there were no exceptions, but Matthew adds an exception . . . that of fornication. The Greek word can be translated as premarital unchastity, or it may also include adultery. If premarital unchastity is a ground for divorce then the grounds for divorce are widespread today. One thing is clear--Jesus stands strongly for the ideal of one man for one woman in marriage for the whole of life. It is important to note however that Jesus is not giving a law; rather a principle or an ideal. If he is giving a law then it needs to be interpreted alongside some of his other commands to love our enemies; to love our neighbour as we love ourselves; to forgive, etc . . .

      Moses did not command or sanction divorce, He made a concession for divorce in order to regulate the otherwise chaotic social conditions of the day. Our present society has legislated, in a similar way today, yet holding to a very strong ideal of marriage of one man to one woman for life. Jesus refers to Moses and also to the union of Adam and Eve, which to him was the unbreakable union of man and woman. However divorce wasn't relevant for Adam and Eve because there was no one else to marry!

      The concession allowed by Matthew is regarded by most scholars as an addition made by the Church (Matthew was written after Mark and Luke), in the light of some very difficult practical situations. Paul seems to struggle with the same dilemma in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15. Matthew believed strongly that the church had been given this power (chapter 18:18) by Jesus.

      For me the biblical teaching is quite emphatic and clear in terms of the ideal and that is the indissolubility of marriage. 'Again, 'however the bible is also clear in the ideals of love, forgiveness, repentance, faith, etc.. One other passage really puts me in the group of the condemned. Jesus sad "anyone who looks at a woman with a lustful eye has already committee adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27). Few of us, if any, could stand uncondemned as Jesus hold aloft the ideal of a very deep commitment of spirit and mind in the marriage relationship! He turns the problem from the outward law to the inward spirit where so often the seeds of divorce germinate.

Some Implications Today

1. The Church can never cease to preach the ideal of marriage as an indissoluble union of a man and a woman. Maybe ministers need to sound forth this message clearly as young people are barraged with the messages of the world. All divorced people in congregations would agreed with this ideal; all they ask is for some understanding and acceptance despite their failure in marriage.
2. The State has accepted the same ideal in marriage. The Marriage Act 1961 states that a civil celebrant must say (or words to this effect) . . . "I am to remind you of the solemn and binding nature of the relationship into which you are about to enter. Marriage according to law in Australia is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life". It is interesting to note the huge increase in civil weddings over recent years! Does the Church encourage this movement by refusing to marry non-believers or can a wedding be an opportunity for the gospel to take root?
3. The practical reality is that divorce will continue. This means that there is a likelihood of more and more people coming to worship as people whose marriages have failed. I do not see them as any different from others of us who have failed in other significant commitments, particularly the vows of discipleship involving believing, loving and forgiving. Few of us deliberately hate, or deceive or are greedy, etc. Divorced people do not consciously set about the wrecking of their marriage. Divorced people are only one group of the sinners and outcasts who gather to worship the Lord and to preach the gospel.
4. A re-think of the traditional hierarchy in marriage is needed. For centuries theologians (and I have never heard of a woman theologian) have supported cultural and religious traditions of the headship of husbands and men in general. Women have had to battle (as did slaves of an earlier century) to be recognized as equals. Even as late as this century Sigmund Freud described women as an inferior man without a penis. It is true that a theology of hierarchy can be supported from the Bible. But it is also true that a theology of the partnership of equals can also be established. This requires not one party to be in submission, but both . . . and out of reverence for Christ (see Ephesians 5:21). A theology of Man as man and woman is necessary. The State has already proclaimed this equality and has fines for those who discriminate against sex. The Church has been slow in giving women their rightful place alongside of men in the sacraments and in the proclamation of the gospel. It is, and growing numbers of women are accepting the call of God. By the way, we have always been glad of their willingness to go out to the mission fields. Now we are glad that they can serve in the full time ministry in mission fields anywhere.
5. Ministry to the older single person, the separated, the divorced, is now being given a lot of thought in some congregations. The need is everywhere as teachers experience growing numbers of children in one-parent families.
         A one-parent family is almost as common today as two-parent families. I know of people who have felt rejected and left out as congregations emphasise 'the family church'. The intent is not to leave people out, but singles very easily get the message. Divorced people publicly acknowledge their failure in marriage, maybe there are many of us in the church who are secretly or covertly divorced and hope that no one will find out?
         Maybe there are many strong marriages in the church. All three groups plus those who are still on the outside looking in, could get together to learn from each other.
6. Marriage preparation is a must! However latest research indicates little effectiveness of counselling and courses during engagement. Two factors counter against much of the hard work being done by ministers. One is the 'idealization' of couples ('others have problems, but we don't--'we love each other' approach). Another is the commitment to the wedding rather than a commitment to use engagement as a time to grow in the relationship. One significant tool called P.R.E.P.A.R.E. is now available for ministers to use in their counselling.
         It is mostly an evaluative instrument helping couples to be aware of their strengths, weaknesses and any areas not talked about. Training programs are now available in all States to assist ministers in the use of this approach. I have used this approach with over fifty couples with a 10% break-up of relationships prior to marriage!
7. Recent research plus some of the old hands at marriage counselling like David and Vera Mace, agree that the best time for marriage preparation is within marriage. Marriage enrichment and marriage encounter are both movements within the Church aimed at strengthening and affirming marriages, introducing couples to new skills in listening, affirming, conflict resolution, etc. Since 1950 a great amount of knowledge has been accumulated to help in interpersonal relationships, communication, intimacy, etc. It would be tragic if the church left this to the secular human relation agencies. A combination of the dynamic of faith with the new skills in human relation . . . can work wonders for partners in marriage. To a very large degree I believe that many divorced people are victims of our society rather then failures. Our courting patterns do not fit young people for the realism of marriage. It is not marriage that is failing, we are--as parents, teachers and ministers. I wonder sometimes if we suffer from dis-ease in these areas because we struggle so much ourselves.
8. Numbers of writers (Hartin, Stapleton, Bright, Mace, Scanzoni, Powell, Jewett and others) are trying to alert people to the new partnership model which has far greater opportunity to bring meaning and fulfilment to both partners in today's changing climate, than the old hierarchical model which fitted earlier cultures of male domination.

      In conclusion, let me emphasise again the biblical ideal of marriage as the union of one man and one women for life. However, as with other ideals, may of us fail in our attempts to attain those heights. I personally do not think that we should withhold the services of the church in re-marriage, or condemn those who have failed in a marriage. The church is full of people like myself who have failed in reaching other ideals, but who rejoice in the grace of our Lord who gives opportunities to start again.

      The Biblical teaching on divorce is very much dependent on the general teaching concerning marriage.I should indicate at the outset that presupposition which is very much inherent in this paper is that the Biblical teaching on any subject is for our benefit, not God's. He is perfect and self sufficient. What can we add to Him? God desires that we live as effectively as possible and thus has given us His word to guide us. Because relationships are vitally important to effective living, the Bible contains much teaching about relationships. Potentially the second most important relationship we can have is our relationship with a spouse. At the head of the list of 'neighbours' (in Matthew 22:39 context) is my spouse. This is because the marriage relationship with its potential through commitment for companionships romance) procreation, support has a greater capacity than any other relationship to provide what the human being needs for a full life. John 10:10 Jesus said 'I am come that you might have life in all its fulness.' However, the positive potential for this marriage relationship is offset by the possibility of the relationship being a very difficult and hurtful experience. This potential difficulty is expressed in Matthew 19:8 as 'hardness of heart'. Our capacity to realise the fullness of a marriage relationship is affected adversely by sin, particularly in the form of selfishness.

      Marriage as a relationship of commitment (Genesis 2:24 . . . a man leaves his father and mother and is united with his wife, and they become one) has been given by God. When a person enters into this relationship lightly or without regard to it as the second deepest commitment of life (relationship with God being the deepest) it is not being entered into in the terms God gave it; remembering that these terms have been given by God because they are the conditions under which marriage is most likely to be able to provide fulfilling living. A strong, lasting, loving marriage relationship is of great value in the effective nurturing of children and thus not only is a help in bringing fulfilling living to the marriage partners, but can be basic to children having the capacity for effective living.

      God's amazing love and strength is demonstrated in His willingness to relate to us as we are. He has sat out for us the ideal, and has sacrificed Himself to help us make some progress towards that ideal. When we fall short of that mark (sin) because of inadequate attitudes and actions, we suffer. God does not abandon us in that predicament. Our proneness towards inadequacy in our marriage relationship is no exception. Marriage difficulty and even failure is not the unpardonable sin.

      For many years I have struggled with the contradiction between a strong conviction that God can forgive every sin except my unwillingness to let Him forgive, (a limitation He has placed on Himself for my benefit) and Jesus' apparent teaching that a person who has failed in marriage can never start again (except under the specific condition of adultery of the other party). I have taken cultural conditions into account but have still felt that I would need to abandon my 'tight' view of inspiration and the accuracy of the Bible in order to be able to integrate these "marriage" teachings of Jesus into the gospel.

      As a person who does not regard himself as a competent theologian I have sometimes been confused by the multiplicity of Biblical positions on this subject.

      Nevertheless, recently I read the booklet "Divorce" by B. Ward Powers and found that as a linguist and theologian with a similar 'tight' view of the scriptures to my own, he has indicated that the teaching of the Bible concerning marriage, remarriage and divorce can be summarised as:

      1. In accordance with the practice from Moses through to Paul, all remarriage after divorce is to be accepted as valid marriage in the same way and by the same standards as apply to a first marriage.

      2. The break-up of a marriage must be recognised as contrary to the will of God, and therefore a sin; but the same scriptural teachings about repentance, forgiveness, justification, and a new start, apply in relation to these sins as to all others. There are no 'special' rules, which put the sins of a marital break-up beyond God's forgiveness, and the Church must recognize and accept this in its pastoral ministrations.

      3. In a particular case where a divorcee wishes to be remarried in a church ceremony, this can be allowed if it is not an instance of the situation forbidden by Christ (a person shedding one spouse in order to take another) and if in his pastoral ministration in preparation for the wedding the celebrant satisfies himself, so far as this is possible, that the divorcee realizes and repents of the extent (small or great) to which he/she was responsible for the failure of the first marriage."

      These approaches seem to me to preserve a strong view of the truth of all scriptures while teaching God's compassionate acceptance of us as we are. If we emphasize only the ideals to which God draws our attention then we can expect the end result for many of us to be despair, because we cannot attain the standards. If we do not emphasize God's high standards, then we may settle too easily for a second rate existence, not knowing what is possible. God's answer to this predicament is to provide strength in the midst of each situation, forgiveness and the capacity to forgive, and the security and support of a community of caring people.

      In his Ethics notes for the Churches of Christ Theological College the late Rex Ellis wrote re Paul's teachings in 1 Corinthians 7, I propose then, that if 'peace' is enhanced by a divorce (and a divorce without right to remarry was unthinkable) and remarriage, then such a step is right (or perhaps the lesser of two evils)" He then sums up the subject of divorce with the conclusion;

      "God's perfect will is permanent marriage, but because of the hardness of our hearts, and the fact that, while the kingdom of God has broken into mankind, the reign of sin has not yet ended, divorce and remarriage is sometimes with pain, possible. Divorce is just as forgivable as murder, adultery, pride and every other kind of sin." (2)

      Most of the people, with whom the church has contact give great emphasis to the importance of marriage. Divorce is for them the last resort. For them a marriage break-up is experienced very much as a failure (all the practical difficulties during the process of divorce ensure that people don't gloss over the issues). Therefore most people don't need to be told they have failed, They need to experience forgiveness and the opportunity to begin again. Understanding and guidance are the key at this time.

      There is no contradiction between Christians having a 'high' view of marriage and counselling people towards what is best for all concerned in the situation. Sometimes, certainly, there will be opportunity to help people to be reconciled for them to be able to experience the love of God flowing through them to the other people involved in the marriage difficulties. Sometimes, for various reasons, this will not be possible. The history of God's involvement with the human race has shown us that He accepts with sadness that situation, but certainly does not abandon those people. If that has been God's way of relating, we would all be in deep trouble.

      God relies on us to be supporters and carers through and in these situations of marriage breakdown. Those who have experienced a recent marriage breakdown are often in great need, including continuing support during any period of single parenthood. The church needs to show that it accepts the situation as it is in our community, by coming to terms with the need to help and accept those hurt by marriage breakdown. This will involve the church in the provision of a community which resembles an extended kinship family support system. Approaches such as that used by "Birthright" where a "substitute" parent is nominated and supports the family on a long-term basis should be a part of the ministry of the church.

      The rebuilding of the divorcee's confidence in people and the possibility of forming close relationships in the present and the future can be done in the warmth and security of a Christian fellowship. If the church gave more positive help to unmarried people concerning the criteria for wise choice of a marriage partner, and more practical help during the early years of marriage particularly the early child rearing years, there would be less marriage failures.

      We probably need to demonstrate our desire and capacity to love and care for those who are committed Christians and who suffer the experience of a marriage breakdown before we will earn the right to have our community generally listen to Us on a whole range of issues including God's capacity to recreate people through the forgiveness of their sins.

References:
(1) Divorce: B. Ward Powers, John Wade, A.F.E.S. Graduates Fellowship, Sydney, 1978.
(2) C.R.F. Ellis: Ethics Roneod notes, Correspondence Course, Churches of Christ (N.S.W.) Theological College, Lesson 17, Part 3, Section A 1, Page 28.

      This paper is seen as but one contribution in a dialogue. Here are elements which I hold ought to be given consideration, not because I present them, but only as they witness to God's will.

      Christian marriage requires more of a man and a woman than does the civil law of a State. For the Christian marriage entails more than an ideal, which we recognise but cannot reach; it is not a dream which cannot come to terms with the facts of life. It is grounded in the love and will of God that a couple should be united in a mutual life to the benefit of themselves, their children, their society, and the kingdom of God. Within the church we are called to assent with all our being to God's word to us, individually and together.

      In Ephesians 5 Paul characteristically moves between moral questions and theological matters. In reading about marriage we are suddenly peering into the mystery of Christ's relationship with the church. It alerts us to the fundamental importance of the marriage bond when such a transition can occur. When Peter was talking about the personal nature of the faith he writes:

1 Pet 2:4 (NRSV)
4. Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God's sight, and
5. like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house . . .

      The personal relationship with Christ is to result in a community which, in obedience to God, is to reflect the fundamental nature of reality.

      Our commitment to Christ is to be reflected in our relationships with other people, and within marriage.

      Genesis 2:18-25 indicates God's intention about the mystery of the mutual life which a man and woman can enjoy. Jesus takes up that passage in Matthew 19:3-12 and reaffirms the permanent nature of that bond.

      The clause except for unchastity may be a later insertion into the text of Matthew, and it does not appear in Mark 10:1-12 or in Luke 16:18.

      The command, in Mark 10:9 (NRSV) Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate . . . " is difficult to avoid.

      In the INTERPRETER'S BIBLE (Vol. 8:288) G. A. Buttrick writes:

      "The law permitted divorce on certain grounds, some of them flimsy and an encouragement to male irresponsibility and selfishness. But the gospel went back to the original command of God that man and woman in marriage shall be one flesh, i. e. one personality. Divorce within personality is worse than unnatural: it is death. So the gospel, while it might admit that a writ of divorcement is a necessary concession to the hardness of men's hearts (Matthew 19:8) upholds the original command of God's holy love. Thus the gospel fulfills the law not only by carrying its letter back the spirit, not only by only by laying its yoke on men's motives rather than merely in their outward act, but also by bringing men to the love of God in whom alone they can find forgiveness and sufficient strength."

      Viewing marriage in the context of the Scriptures would indicate, to me, that any erosion of vows freely given to God and another, is an erosion of the temple which God is building. A 'person' is only that by reason of association with others, both divine and human, and a fundamental personal relationship such as that between man and wife, in Christ and this side of death, is constantly seen as permanent in the Scriptures.

      Karl Barth's discussion in CHURCH DOGMATICS (Vol. III, Part 4, pp. 216-240 is "in the light of the command of God", and I would see it as in line with the tradition of our churches. In this paper I assume that we are "under the command of God", that there is a knowledge of God's will in this matter.

      Barth writes:

      "In faith, i. e., in the grateful affirmation of the covenant, of the free electing grace of God, it is impossible to accept either a fickle eroticism or polygamy in the relationship of man and woman. In faith these possibilities are behind us. In faith we may say in marriage: This woman and no other! This man and no other . . . In the Old Testament it is clear that polygamy was practiced quite unthinkingly, and that no direct objection was raised against it by the law and the prophets, the classic instance being the story of the patriarchs.

      Yet somewhere in the background, especially in the decisive passage, Genesis 2:18-25, but even in the Song of Songs (specifically ascribed to Solomon for all his 700 wives and 300 concubines) 1 Kings: 11:3, and again in the conception which emerges in Hosea 1-3, monogamy seems to be envisaged as true marriage. When we turn to the New Testament, polygamy seems suddenly to have disappeared from view." (p. 199)

      If the Scriptural understanding of marriage is of a " . . . life-lasting partnership . . . the full and exclusive union of a man and woman for the whole of the time which lies before them in common" (p. 203) then this positive understanding would seem to need more strenuous presentation among us than may seem to be the case at present. There is more than a little danger that because of the hardness of heart of human beings, the command of God may suffer the "death of a thousand qualifications". If the command of God is not evaluated amongst us, and given costly obedience, then we may be guilty of giving "a positive encouragement to frivolous divorce." In this and other matters within the church we are under obedience and must do the truth, or compromise our witness to the reality of faith in God. If we do not do the truth then our position may finally be indistinguishable from the complete moral relativism, which commands the allegiance of so many now. The terms of the Commission point to three areas, and it is these that will occupy me now.

      In the Introduction I disclose an attitude to the prior question of marriage.

      This seems to be a necessary perspective from which to examine the specific terms of reference of the Commission. I suppose the issues were raised because of concern for people subject to the frustrations, or complete breakdown, of less than satisfactory experience in marriage. I trust that it was also to reaffirm the Scriptural teaching on marriage.

      My concordance indicates that there is little reference to divorce in the New Testament. It would seem an increasing number of people in our society, within or without the fellowship of the church, come to marriage breakdown. (Hence the need for careful teaching about marriage in the teaching ministry of the church.) Any minister with long experience will have spent many painful hours in the pastoral care of people in this situation.

      As the question of marriage cannot be separated from God's command, so the question of marriage breakdown cannot be separated from concern for the men and women involved, or for the children of such marriages, or the witness of the church, or the well being of the whole of society. Often concern about marriage breakdown does not properly consider more than the primary two involved. We need to keep firmly in mind that the scars of such erosion of value go very deep and wide. Every effort must be made then to maintain and restore marriages in danger. What the civil law allows is not necessarily in accordance with what is required by God. There is realism in obedience never to be found in evasion.

      Without condoning divorce when it does occur, the church must care for those who are hurt by it. Divorce is contrary to God's will, and therefore it must be a sin. Whoever is hurt by sin is the object of the care and compassion of Christ, and the church. Every effort must be made to rebuild something out of the ruins. Wisdom and skill is needed in such ministry, but our first aid in such emergencies has to be carried out within a sound understanding of the command of God concerning marriage.

      Eduard Thurneysen writes: (A THEOLOGY OF PASTORAL CARE: p. 31)

      "The conclusion is unavoidable that pastoral care must be practiced. But it must be pastoral care in which the Word of God retains its self-sufficiency and stands over against all human piety and in which man does not cease to be its pupil."

      Here our true well being is linked to heeding the command of God. The thinking about marriage is linked with other issues. The idea of taking the faith with radical seriousness has always run counter to much in our world.

      Let me hint at one example which concerns me. Nihilism denies meaning in life. Hans Kung in DOES GOD EXIST (p. 421) writes: "The nihilist's assumption is that there is no truth . . . " And Kung goes to great lengths to illustrate how increasingly pervasive and influential this idea is, promoted above all by Nietzsche in the nineteenth century. Paul Tillich was influenced profoundly by Nietzsche, and it has far reaching effects on his personal life, and his thought, which led him to views which were later stated as:

      "I deny the possibility of a vow because of the finitude of the finite. A vow, if it is an absolute commitment, would make the moment in which we make it infinite or absolute. Other moments come which reveal the relativity of the moment in which this decision was once made." (Quoted in PAUL TILLICH: HIS LIFE AND THOUGHT: by Wilhelm and Marion Pauck: p.88. Chapter Three gives background to this reference.)

      It is also reported that:

      "He preached . . . incessantly to avoid the pitfalls of compulsive self-giving, which he felt was the great danger implicit in the monogamous relationship. He urged them (women friends) to remain open, even as he was, to the infinite experiences of life." (Ibid. p. 89)

      Here his views seem to me to be defective, to be little more that rationalization, and to demand a review of the considerable influence his work has had on my thought over many years. He has had influence on the subject of pastoral counseling through his writings. Has he been one, among others, contributing to a 'soft line' in dealing with marital difficulties?

      But in many other ways the unexamined and often unknown roots of 'practical theology' might be found to be compromised in the light of Biblical teaching. A reviewer of Thurneysen's book remarked that:

      " . . . it represents a challenge to a lot of writing that, though it goes under the name of pastoral care, is pursued from a fuzzy, questionable, or a heretical theological orientation." (The Christian Century: August 22, 1962.)

      As we commit ourselves to each other in marriage we do so permanently in terms of this life. To weaken that is to affect our faith and witness.

      By powerful influences we are constantly hammered with the notion that human existence is scarcely more than a life support system for our genitals.

      And while I have no desire to underplay the physical (The Word became flesh), our faith sets the physical in a context which much thinking seeks to persuade us is simply not true. The history of this century, if it is reckoned with realistically, might give us pause--even persuade us that we need to look again--at the truth of the context provided by the Biblical faith.

      An apologetic seeking to affirm the relevance of God is not the purpose of this paper. That relevance is assumed. Hans Kung reports of Max Horkheimer that, despite his "negative theology", he insists that " . . . without the thought of God, there is no absolute meaning, no absolute truth, and morality becomes a matter of taste and mood." (DOES GOD EXIST? p. 489). It is in obedience to God that Christians must refuse to surrender to the powerful fashions of thought which have so disastrously affected our world.

      God's command is compassionate in the deepest and widest sense of the word, towards all human beings. To build and restore obedience to it is in the best interests of human beings. If we pretend to proclaim "forgiveness" without regard to "command" are we moving into the situation which Paul rejects in Romans 6:1-2? The gospel demands an obedience even deeper that the Law. Repentance, which seeks restoration and new beginnings when we fall from God's will, is also our task to further; forgiveness is of God, and it is not for us to distribute as "cheap grace". Forgiveness is a promise conditional on our faith, and readiness to turn and change. Our primary duty is to witness to the will of God, and where His Word is heard and received blessing will certainly follow. But in this, and other areas, the hard duty of restoration and renewal of relationships is not lifted from us by the facile talk of forgiveness.

      E. C. Hoskyns (in WE ARE THE PHARISEES) reminds us that in our time we are the religious people, as were the Pharisees in Jesus' time. Hoskyns characterizes the Pharisees as those who "say and do not". We are to avoid pharisaic attitudes towards others. The Publican's prayer must not be a matter of form with us. (Luke: 18-9-14). We point to One, before whom none can have any confidence in their own righteousness. But we must point to that One! If we fail in that matter then our lives are endangered. We can talk only as sinful men to sinful men--but where some inkling of God's truth pierces our darkness we dare not be untrue to it. What is our situation if we seem to give assent to easy deviation from God's command in the matter of marriage?

      Surely we are constrained to say and do the truth with all our powers, knowing that our only worthwhile ministry is in pointing to the truth; we do not control it or make it. That duty does not diminish in any degree that compassion that must be exercised towards all in need. But let us not change the command of God to suit others or ourselves. Unless within the church there is radical obedience, can the truth be witnessed to which can alone really aid human beings?

      Concerning organisation one matter calls for comment. In the past whatever decisions were made concerning divorce have been made without reference to the authority of the wider church. A similar situation exists where a local congregation can call a man to ministry (whatever his qualifications) and he usually gains a status in the churches generally. This may or may not be satisfactory in individual cases. My point is that the brotherhood is involved by the decision of one congregation. In questions of marriage breakdown, and re-marriage, the minister of a congregation carries a responsibility, which might be more satisfactorily borne by representatives of the brotherhood.

      Do we set aside the good sense of 1 Timothy 3:5 (1 Tim 3:5 (NRSV) . . . for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God's church?) if we compromise about divorce in our ministry and leadership? In congregations we have people with many and varied marital problems. How can those who have been set aside to minister in these areas satisfactorily minister if they have had to solve their own problems within marriage by divorce?

      Is it appropriate for a minister who is divorced to pass on to his people the command of God regarding the sacredness of marriage, or to teach about family life? Is it not reasonable to require that a person in a position of leadership in the church, who is divorced by husband or wife, relinquish whatever position is held? Such a person needs the healing ministry of the church, rather than attempt to give it. What has brought about the breakdown of a marriage may be precisely the things which disqualify for leadership in the church.

      I have heard of a minister (in our churches but in another country) arranging his third wedding within his congregation, and being rebuked only by the organist, who refused to play for the third wedding. Is the truth entrusted only to organists? Are we in danger of drifting into such areas of compromise in the Australian brotherhood? The task of witness is surely difficult enough, without non-members being able to feel and say that we "say and do not." The ministry of the church, both public and private is open to all. But can we promote a ministry, which is publicly compromised by divorce? 2 Corinthians 2:14-17 must surely be our concern. (2 Cor 2:14 (NRSV) But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads in every place the fragrance that comes from knowing him. (2 Cor 2:15-17 (NRSV) For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? For we are not peddlers of God's word like so many; but in Christ we speak as persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God and standing in his presence.)

      The opinion may be taken that in the light of the spirit of Christ and the whole of the teaching of the New Testament, divorce and remarriage may be accepted in hard and exceptional cases as an inevitable and even responsible compromise. It should be underlined that it is always a compromise. In the limitations of our world we do accept compromises. However, acceptance and appointment to position of responsible ministry in such wise as to negate all discipline will inevitably give the impression that divorce is accepted in principle. If it be argued that we must accept a repentant murderer, who cannot make restitution, it should be recognised that neither in the church nor in society will such forgiveness and acceptance be construed as an acceptance of murder. In the pressure of our modern situation, in church and in society, unreserved and undisciplined acceptance of divorce and remarriage opens the way for a permissiveness that undermines a Christian ethic under the Lordship of Christ.

(a) The Biblical Ideal

      The Biblical ideal, as contained in the creation story and underlined by Jesus, is for a man and a women to be companions and to live together in harmony. Divorce is a product of disharmony and therefore falls short of the ideal. The courses of action open to a married couple who cannot fulfil the ideal--i. e. who cannot be companions and live in an harmonious relationship, is the underlying issue at stake.

(b) Statement of the Biblical Teaching

      Moses permitted a man to divorce a women if he found some indecency in her" (Deut. 24:1-4) Scholars report that this provision tightens the situation from an indiscriminate or arbitrary divorce practice to one in which divorce is permitted only under certain 'justified' circumstances.

      In his specific teaching, Jesus sustains this position (Matt. 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12). 'In these passages Jesus reiterates the ideal of the man and the woman becoming "one flesh" and specifies unchastity as the sole ground for divorce. As the disciples apparently found seine difficulty in accepting this (Matt. 19:10-12), Jesus indicated that not all could accept it, but those who could, should (v. 12), Jesus' teaching is succinctly summarised in Matt. 5:31-32.

      Jesus' teaching on marriage is in terms of the ideal of ceasing to be two but becoming one (Matt. 19:4-6). In an interchange with the Sadducees (Matt. 22:23-33) Jesus suggests that marriage does not have eternal significance, "for at the resurrection men and women do not marry" (v. 30) Marriage thus appears to be an institution to regulate living in this world. In another context Jesus gave his teaching on the relationship between man and institutions "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27-28). If this teaching is generalisable across institutions we could soy, 'Marriage was made for man and not man for marriage'. By this teaching man if accorded a higher value than the institutions designed to organise and regulate his life and conduct, and the institutional conditions of marriage should be supportive of the development of man. St. Paul sustained Jesus' teaching in 1 Corinthians 7, with one modification, which he acknowledges to be his own. In this modification he permits believers to allow non-believing partners to leave the marriage (v. 15). This implies a hierarchy of values. Clearly for Paul the issue was one of sustaining one's Christian stance and witness and pleasing the Lord as contrasted with investing energy in marriages to please each other (vv. 32-34).

(c) Divorce in Biblical Times

      In both Old and New Testament times, divorce was accompanied by severe social sanction, stigmatisation, ostracism and feelings of failure and rejection on the part of the divorcee. Divorcees were relegated to marginal positions in society. Their economic livelihood was precarious. In most cases it was the husband who 'put away' his wife. Often she was cut off by her family of origin as well as by her husband and she was left to the mercy of life at the fringe of society, a life for which she was ill-prepared. Casting a person out of home, fellowship and support was totally alien to Jesus' attitude of love and compassion for our fellows.

Caring Ministry for People

      In recent years, the incidence of divorce in Australia has risen substantially. Now in excess of 40,000 marriages end in divorce each year. A sizeable minority of Australian children is affected by parental separation. The family Law Act of 1975 reflects the shift taken by many western governments towards a 'no fault' concept of marital dissolution; and community attitudes towards divorced people, as expressed for example in popular journalism and the media, have softened substantially over the past decade.

      Divorce in Australia today is a somewhat different phenomenon from that in the Middle East in Biblical times. In more than half the cases, it is the woman who files for divorce, suggesting that an increasing number of women are not prepared to sustain a relationship that falls far below their ideal of a marriage. Indeed some argue that divorce is supportive of a high view of marriage by dissolving relationships that are not "marriages" in the Christian sense of the word. Many of these women are employed and financially self-sufficient. The government offers basic economic support to others. There is also a new sub-society the 'world of the formerly married' which is complete with its own culture, norms, organisations and friendship networks, and which offers social assimilation to those who leave marriages or are left by their partners. While this sub-society eases the transition out of a relationship., it does not take away the pain, the disruption and the loss that typically accompany separation and divorce.

      The situation is most difficult for the involuntarily separated particularly those who are unilaterally abandoned with very meagre resources and multiple commitments. More of these people are women and children but there is a contemporary rise in mothers deserting leaving fathers and children to care for themselves and each other. The caring ministry of the church has ample scope for expression with such people. Material relief, longer-term involvement in support and friendship, not-works and other ministries to children and adults can be developed.

      About 80% of divorced people eventually remarry. This indicates quite strongly that they are not closed to marriage per se. Studies suggest that most remarrying people felt they could not achieve an ideal marriage in their first relationship and that it was the relationship that was faulty and not marriage as an institution and not themselves as persons. Remarriage offers a second chance and is thus compatible with the gospel of new beginnings,

      The Christian Welfare Centre in Perth runs two innovative programmes which are ministering to the needs of two sub-groups of those affected by separation and divorce. One is the Home Support Service, which offers guidance, home help and network support to spouseless fathers with young children. It is supported by funds from the Family Support Services Scheme which originate in the Office of Child Care, Department of Social Security. The other ministry is the Life Reconstruction After Divorce course which is a low-cost group education and counselling programme for separated and divorced persons seeking to develop a new pattern of life. This course is used as part of the healing ministry of the Church. These two initiatives bring under the influence of the Centre a significant number of persons who would not normally come into the orbit of the Church's ministry. It is at a time of personal and family disruption that some people realise that their life habits are not bearing the fruits they would like, and they are unusually open to new approaches. From a caring point of view there is a clear difference between the after-separation needs of vulnerable people who have been deserted and the life situations of resourceful people whose separation has been negotiated and agreed.

      As divorce is usually the end result of an unsatisfactory marriage with a long history of conflict, the preventive pastoral emphasis should be on increasing the quality of the marriage relationship. Care is also needed for those whose relationships have come apart. Consequently we would like to see every State Conference of Churches of Christ develop and promote throughout their States an integrated series of Christian Education and support programmes in the following areas:--

      (a) Pre-marital Education: especially partner selection and preparation for courtship. The issue of partner selection is a thorny one. In a good number of cases church young people select their partners from a very small pool of eligibles and some mismatching results. In addition premarital counselling for individuals and couples should be available.

      (b) Marriage education: including couple communication, marriage enrichment, relationship skills training, Parent Effectiveness Training and family life education.

      (c) Separation and Divorce Counselling: including managing the stresses of separation, life reconstruction after divorce, children in separation and parenting alone.

      (d) Remarriage: including partner selections blending families, step parenting. Pre-marital and marital education should be done in and by every congregation or group of congregations.

      (c) and (d) above are at this time specialist areas and services could be centrally sponsored by each state Conference.

      There in a tension throughout the churches between holding fast to our interpretations of tine Biblical tradition and facing the realities of the situation in which we find ourselves today. In a great number of congregations good church families have been affected by divorce, and indeed a small but significant number of ministers have themselves taken this course of action. As each church wrestles with this dilemma it comes up with its own approach. The Catholic Church has greatly liberalised its annulment provisions, making it possible for many divorced people to remarry and to retain the blessing of the church. Many priests and nuns have applied for and received dispensation for their vows so that they may marry The Mormon Church has increased its emphasis on preventive work by strengthening the texture and significance of family life and intra-family authority. Most churches have increased their acceptance of divorced people and especially the children of divorce while remaining uneasy about divorce itself. Part of this acceptance has been to broaden the concept of "tell death us do part" to include the emotional deaths suffered by people who can no longer relate in a non-destructive way. The Church can help these people realise that after such a death there can be a resurrection to new life. Another part of this attitude change is in not throwing the first stone. Perhaps in a new way the Church is coming to a realisation of the scope of God's forgiveness. Marital sins, like all others can be forgiven, and fresh beginnings are possible.

      As far as Church Leadership is concerned, we see the Christian approach as follows:--

      (a) Sustain the ideal of marriage and teach the skills, attitudes and commitments necessary to help people ranch towards the ideal. Our teaching in the area of Christian Family Life in particular needs to be strengthened.

      (b) Offer marriage education and counselling and family therapy for couples and families, particularly for those in difficulties. Accept such difficulties as part of the struggle for development towards the ideal

      (c) Accept with compassion and support those who are unable to sustain the ideal and who seek to separate. Sometimes ministers and counsellors will agree that the continuation of the relationship is destructive to the persons concerned including the children. Ministers could offer guidance in separation management and life reconstruction. In terms of separation management, we would like to advance to the point where divorces among Christians honour the example of Jesus in caring for each other (on an amicable rather than an adversary basis) and sustaining a mutually agreed framework of Christian nurture for the children.

      (d) Where people are not prepared to accept mediocre lives and pronounce a marriage dead in order to explore the greater ideal of "fullness of life"--the church should offer nurture love and understanding in his/her search for a new life.

      (e) The Church should explore the wider environmental content, especially in a capitalistic economy, e. g. where people are expected to move around the world, or where there is a lack of resources in a new community, or where political fiscal policies influence family life.

      (f) Programmes should be innovative and able to respond to needs rather than packaged programmes imposed on local situations,

      In terms of the ministry, we feel that ministers should be offered training, both in college on a systematic basis, and also in the field on an in-service or continuing education basis in preparation for spouse selection and marriage, marriage dynamics parenting, family dynamics, relationship skills, separation, divorce, remarriage and blending families. Such training should combine biblical theology and pastoral practice with insights from the social and behavioural sciences and with clinical practice.

      Finally we regard the relationship and family revolutions as being serious challenges to our traditional understandings and postures. The issues discussed above need to be extended to consider alternative relationship styles, sexual behaviour, abortion, homosexuality and the other behavioural and relationship issues that are emerging as topics of prominence in contemporary society. Given faith and the willingness to confront the issues squarely, we believe the Church can adapt to the changes and challenges confronting it today and can develop a significant witness and ministry to people in distress.