KEITH ROBINSON, is a West Australian who graduated from the Federal College of the Bible in 1925. He served in full-time ministry at Bunbury, W.A. North Perth, W.A., Nelson, N.Z., and Lake St., Perth and for the past 9½ years has been secretary of the Federal Aborigines' Mission Board. He has been Conference President in both New Zealand and West Aust. At one time he gave several years' service as honorary director of youth work in W.A. He is the present W.A. State President of the Church Men's Society.

      This paper is not a consideration of the subject of marriage as such, but an attempt to come to grips with a problem that is of very vital concern to large numbers of people and to the Church, and about which there is a good deal of confusion, uncertainty and differing opinion. Churches of Christ have no official ruling to serve as a guide. A long-term analysis of opinion among Churches and Ministers reveals a rather alarming situation which, for brevity, may be summed up as follows:--

      (a) Some had no certain mind at all on the subject. They were "conservative" in theory, but when they came up against a practical problem they didn't really know what to do.

      (b) Some were dogmatic in opposition to all divorce and subsequent re-marriage and therefore, critical of all those who differed from them. Many of this group seemed to have little ability to assist people in the complicated tragedies of their lives.

      (c) Some who took the attitude in (b) departed from it when confronted with a practical situation which promised some embarrassment.

      The whole problem has become more acute of recent years. Further, the large-scale evangelistic activity of the past two or three years has increased the acuteness, for many people won to Christ during these efforts have come out of very tangled matrimonial relationships, and are seeking guidance from the churches.

      The following thoughts then, are offered as a sincere contribution to Christian thinking. The writer has drawn upon an experience of 35 years in the full-time ministry. His views are his own, and do not commit others, least of all Churches of Christ as a whole.

      (It will be noted that all these statements, with the possible exception of Heb. 13:4, are from Jesus and the Apostle Paul).

      The above passages involve a great many important and interesting points of interpretation, some of which are noted in the following paragraphs:--

      The statements of our Lord in Matthew, Mark and Luke can be taken together. Some interpreters believe that Jesus makes the marriage bond absolutely indissoluble, leaving no grounds whatever for divorce. They take the Mark and Luke passages as the correct saying of Jesus. There is much to support this view. Others, probably the majority, believe that the exception given in Matthew (in both Chapters 5 and 19) is also a valid record of the words of Jesus. If we accept Mark and Luke and reject Matthew's exception the issue is certainly clear-cut, but ' makes the, practical application a great deal more difficult. On the other hand,

if we accept Matthew's exception we are involved in an even more complicated practical issue, as follows:--

      1. The plain fact is that in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 the words "fornication" and adultery" are not used synonymously. They are two different words in both the original Greek and the English translation. Any dictionary will show that, broadly speaking, fornication is sexual intercourse before marriage, while adultery is the defilement of the marriage bed, or illicit sexual intercourse after marriage.

      2. Now this means that Matthew states the ground for divorce to be the discovery that one of the parties had departed from chastity before marriage. (The literal words of Jesus speak only of the woman's defection). Thus we are faced with a situation which tightens up the prohibition regarding divorce, or else loosens it, according to the circumstances.

      3. Now there are very few Ministers who have not married couples because the woman was pregnant. In some cases this was the only reason for the marriage taking place at all, or at the particular time. In such cases, then, we are in the position of marrying people when the grounds of divorce are already present. Further, looking at life in a hard, matter-of-fact way we could hardly delude ourselves that every person who comes to us for marriage has had no previous sexual experiments.

      Another point emerging from the Matthew and Mark passages is the statement of our Lord, "What God hath joined together let not man put asunder." This raises at least three considerations:--

      1. As will be stated again further on, true marriage is the fusion of two personalities, not merely the physical union of two bodies. A marriage on a physical basis only, even though affection of a sort be present, is not true marriage. Though sanctioned by both Church and State, it may only be legalised lust.

      2. Experience and observation reveal that God has no part at all in a great many marriages, even despite the fact that the vows were taken in a church ceremony. Then can it be argued that God joined the parties? Did they not join themselves? In other words, they were joined by man. A valid marriage in the legal sense in Australia does not require any religious rites, but such marriages can hardly be called valid in the Christian sense. Therefore, if they are broken it is also without reference to the Christian ideal.

      3. If we adhere to the ultimate Christian ideal of one woman for one man for life, with the one exception of fornication, and disallow the remarriage of divorcees under any circumstances, Ministers of Religion should refuse to conduct any marriages save those in which both parties are known to be committed followers of Christ. It would seem that we rather too easily assume that any two people may marry so long as neither has been divorced.

      1 Cor. 7 is a long passage in which Paul is replying to questions referred to him by the Corinthians, and his replies are manifestly related to the conditions pertaining among them. He writes in a very guarded manner, and apparently with some diffidence admitting exceptions and giving restricted opinions. It is not easy to arrive at his precise meaning and, therefore, great care has to be exercised in using his

statements apart from their context.

      2 Cor. 6:14-18 undoubtedly applies to marriage, though it must by no means be restricted thereto. Taken literally it would seem to imply that Christian Ministers should not conduct marriages where one party is a non-Christian. This, perhaps, does involve deciding whether a person is a Christian. We might prefer to use the term non-church member.

      Ephesians 5:22-33 lifts us into the sublime, revealing the glorious ideal.

      The primary purpose of 1 Tim. 3:2, 12 is to state the case against polygamy.

      The stern injunction and warning of Heb. 13:4 must be taken to heart.

      It cannot be stated too strongly or clearly that the Christian ideal for marriage is one woman for one man for life in a total unity of spirit, mind and body, in which the husband and wife are dedicated to each other, sharing all the circumstances of life. Both Jesus and Paul quote the timeless pattern initiated by God from the beginning, and the latter uses the ideal marriage relation as an illustration of the union between Christ and the Church.

      In the ideal sense marriage is the completion of personality, for man and woman were made for each other. (1 Cor. 11:11, 12). Marriage is not given so that a man and a woman can do one thing together, but so that they can do all things together. This complete unity of one man and one woman on all sides of their personalities is the fulfilment of life provided for in the Divine purpose, and the whole of Scripture bid us make it our goal.

      It must also be strongly emphasised that our Lord and the apostle Paul laid down a principle, not a law in the sense of a statute or commandment. A law in this sense is precise, and limited in its scope to an overt act. It is either obeyed or disobeyed, A principle is a formula or guide for achieving the best possible results in any situation to which it is relevant. Jesus revealed the difference when He showed the superiority of "Love thy neighbour as thyself" over the Ten Commandments, when He said, "Be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect." A principle can never be quoted as an explicitly-stated law. In the Matthew, Mark and Luke passages, Jesus was dealing with a social situation in which husbands held absolute power over their wives. The husband had the right to divorce his wife, but not the wife her husband. Mark 10:12 does suggest that a woman could divorce her husband, but under Jewish law the possibility of her doing so was very remote, and thus that verse strengthens the paint being made in this paragraph. Jesus made His replies purposely sweeping and arbitrary to forestall any quibbling by the Pharisees, many of whom had probably divorced at least one wife under the laws of the time. He held up to both the Pharisees and His disciples God's perfect ideal of marriage in the light of which anything less is imperfect. His answer stifled the argument the Pharisees were looking for.

      The sequel has deep significance. In Matthew 19:10 we have the disciples' reaction. They expressed their dismay that the ideal is so high as to be impossible of attainment and that, therefore, it would be better not to marry. In somewhat cryptic language Jesus replied that not everyone could accept the situation. It involves spiritual insight, training and maturity. In other words only the Christian

can accept and hope to fulfil the Christian ideal. This ideal presupposes that the parties to the marriage are Christian because it is only with the help of Christ that men and women can develop the character demanded for the ideal marriage. Jesus expanded His answer to the faltering of the disciples before the ideal marriage relation by referring to celibacy as also an ideal under certain circumstances, once again ending up by saying that only those who had special grace could accept and fulfil it.

      When we meditate upon the sublime passage in Ephesians 5:22-33 we can hardly come to any other conclusion than that Paul is not describing actual human marriages as they really are, but as they should be. Who among us would be satisfied for our own marriage to be taken as an example of the relationship between Christ and the Church?

      On the matter of adultery, the accepted ground for divorce, the words of Jesus in Matt. 5:27-28 have a disturbing relevance. He moves the sin from the outward act to the inward springs of thought and desire. We can neither see nor judge the inward workings of each other's hearts, but if a man's faithfulness to his wife is to be judged before God according to this standard many of us stand condemned. Surely here, too, Jesus is stating a principle by which we are to strive for the ideal, not pronouncing a law by which we are to be judged.

      The question of marriage and divorce cannot be settled merely by quoting the words of Jesus and Paul as laws. Nor is there any New Testament example of Christian marriage. The marriage ceremonies used by Ministers are not New Testament documents, though in general, they describe the ideal marriage relation. The principle states the ideal, and we are challenged to keep our eyes upon it but it has to be applied to living situations, both corporate and individual. The sad fact of human experience is that there are times when in this imperfect world we have to get along with something less than the ideal.

      The Church, which is the guardian of the Christian ideal, is set in a social situation which is far below the ideal in most things, marriage included. While the Church cannot, and does not desire to, accept anything less than the ideal for its practice and teaching, it is doubtful if the ideal can be imposed upon a non-Christian community. It has to grow from within.

      Concerning marriage then, the first policy of the Church must be the fence at the top of the cliff. From its own members it must demand the highest standard. By Gospel preaching, Christian education, example, continual teaching and wise counselling it must set the Christian ideal before all people and help them reach it. It would be relevant to introduce at this point the form the ministry of the Church should take along these lines, but it requires special treatment which would be too long and detailed to be attempted here. Churches of Christ have done very little towards constructing the fence at the top. Some notable efforts have been made, such as that of W. R. Hibburt with his two books, "The Altar of Love" and "When Two's Company," but we are woefully deficient in our efforts to prepare people for the responsibilities of marriage.

      However, life is not simple, direct and orderly. It is full of the unpredictable and unforeseen. The things which wreck marriages are mostly things which the law cannot touch. And quoting the statements of the New Testament as laws doesn't touch them either. Therefore the next plank in the policy of the Church must be the

ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, so that the damage of wrecked marriages can be repaired if at all possible. People have a right to expect from the Church a ministry of help and healing in the tangles, turmoils and tragedies they get into. One of the least helpful of approaches is to come to their problems with ready-made answers. Rather must we come with sympathetic understanding and practical wisdom so that the redemptive power of Christ may be brought into each situation. The case-book of any shepherd of souls would furnish numerous illustrations, but three of a general nature must suffice.

      Firstly, consider marriages contracted on purely "secular" foundations. God had but little place in cementing them, and He has been left out of the partnership all along. Hence they were far below the Christian ideal from the beginning. Some of these marriages break up altogether, and the parties are divorced. Now when a person so divorced has discovered new spiritual foundations through commitment to Christ, and in the new life desires to marry another of a like spiritual status, the Church must decide on the following:-

      1. Whether the first marriage is to be regarded as a Christian and spiritual one, or as a secular act of the old unregenerate life. We teach that sincere and genuine acceptance of Christ cancels all past sin and gives a fresh start. Must we rule out all possibility that this could sometimes apply to a marriage that went wrong because it didn't start right, and that a new start may be made?

      2. Whether the highest interests of the lives of the people concerned are best served by the proposed new marriage or by a continuance of the divorced state.

      Secondly, even marriages between Christians sometimes reach breaking point. The vows are taken sincerely and in faith, but factors which were never dreamed of enter in and estrangement takes place. It goes without saying that every available agency will be employed by the Church to heal the breach and restore harmony, but when all else fails it seems contrary to the Spirit of Christ to inform the two people that they are fettered together for the rest of their lives in a situation which can only be a life-time of misery.

      Thirdly, take cases of desertion. Deserted women are more in number than deserted men, though the latter are often met with. In the case of a deserted woman with children, waging a lonely and unequal struggle, the salvation of the whole situation could be a satisfactory second marriage.

      It is not contended that the church should re-marry any divorcees who request it. Many such requests must be refused, but the possibility should be entertained that given careful investigation and consideration some life-situations may he vastly improved by the re-marriage of divorcees.

      The status of divorcees in the Church is a relevant consideration. The decision depends upon the general point of view. If we take the stand that divorce is not allowable at all, then to be consistent we could not admit divorcees to Church membership because we could not assure them of forgiveness for the sin of divorce and because they could hardly be made to feel at home in the fellowship of people who were continually passing judgment on their past actions. If we allow the popularly-called one exception we would have to refuse membership to people divorced on other grounds than that exception. If we accept divorcees into membership on their profession of faith in Christ and

obedience in baptism it is doubtful if we have the right to refuse them the full privilege of church membership. Many divorcees, some re-married, have been effectively used in various fields of Christian service, including the ministry and the Mission fields, to all judgment with God's blessing. In view of the state of society from which people came into the church in New Testament days, and the laws and customs of the times, it is difficult to believe that no people who had been divorced held office in the church.

      People who are happily married, and all those who cherish the Christian ideal, naturally recoil from the sanction of divorce, and still more from the re-marriage of divorcees. The increasing rate of divorce rightly alarms them. The church is right in upholding the Christian ideal for marriage and in pronouncing against the evils of divorce. But it must be realised that the prevalent breaking-up of marriages is an outcome of a general loss of Christian ideal in many spheres of life, not an isolated phenomenon of its own.

      Thousands of people in our own country are like sheep without a shepherd, and the Church must bring to this whole matter of marriage and divorce far more of sympathetic understanding than condemnatory legalism. We must consider that human hearts and souls are at stake, and in each situation take the course which will best serve the highest interests and welfare of all those concerned. Not for one moment would we lower the high Christian ideal, but we must realise that in some cases an ideal is reached through a mistake, and so it happens that sometimes a second marriage for a divorcee turns out to be far more ideal than the first one, and a blessing to those concerned. To be a true agent of redemption it would seem that the Church must learn to apply the gospel of reconciliation and rehabilitation within the framework of this practical world to lives broken in the fiery race, even if such action involves, at times, the re-marriage of a divorcee.

      Our Lord was not ashamed to be associated with people whose lives had been stained with immorality. Tamar, Rahab and Bathsheba are quoted in Matthew 1 as ancestresses of Christ, yet they were guilty of the grossest immorality. King David was guilty of murder and adultery, yet his repentance was accepted, the description "a man after God's own heart" was never revoked, and Jesus gladly acknowledged the title "Son of David." Our Lord accepted the ministrations of Mary Magdalene who, in all probability, had been one of Jerusalem's prostitutes. To the women who had had five husbands (John 4) He talked of the nature of true worship, while to Nicodemus, aristocratic Pharisee and religious leader, He talked the necessity for the new birth (John 3).

      Life hovers between the devil and the angels. The wings of our spirits lift us towards the angels, but the conspiracies of our sordid history weight our feet towards the devil. When discussing a marriage problem on one occasion (Matt. 22:23ff, Mark 12:18ff.) our Lord said that in Heaven we would be as the angels are, neither marrying nor being given in marriage. For our life here He has given us a perfect ideal for marriage in the light of which we cannot but mourn over our imperfections. Yet all that we know of Him through His word, and our experience of Him, teaches us that with the ideal ever before us we serve Him best by applying His redemptive Spirit to each individual marriage problem, and taking the course most likely to lift us away from the devil and nearer the angels.

      Churches of Christ have no official ruling on the important subject dealt with in this pamphlet. Nor is there unanimity of opinion. In order to ascertain a consensus of opinion the writer is prepared to receive and collate the views of those who will write him, and to make the collation available for publication.

      The following questionnaire probably covers the great majority of shades of opinion, and readers are invited to answer same. Covering letters will be appreciated, but the questionnaire is submitted to assist thinking and save time in writing.

      1. Do you agree that the basic Christian ideal is one man for one woman for life? . . . . . . . . . . . .

      2. As it your opinion that there is no Scriptural ground whatever for divorce (not even adultery)? . . . . . . . . . . . .

      3. Would you allow adultery as the one Scriptural ground for divorce? . . . . . . . . . . . .

      4. Do you make a distinction between unchastity before marriage and adultery afterwards, and make the former the only Scriptural ground for divorce? . . . . . . . . . . . .

      5. Do you consider that finally impossible situations in marriage, other than adultery, make divorce allowable? . . . . . . . . . . . . If not divorce, then separation? . . . . . . . . . . . . (Answer only one of these).

      6. Concerning the re-marriage of divorcees--

      (a) Have you a firm conviction against it under any circumstances? . . . . . . . . . . . .

      (b) Would you sanction it under some circumstances? . . . . . . . . . . . .

      (Consider the standpoint of the pamphlet, viz., that the Church, though maintaining a strong emphasis on the Christian ideal, still serves the aims of the Christian gospel by sometimes allowing the re-marriage of divorcees as a means of repairing damage done through a marriage failure.)

      (c) Do you think that if a Minister conducts a marriage where one (or both) of the parties is a divorcee he is thereby aiding and abetting adultery? . . . . . . . . . . . .

      7. Would the Church be inconsistent in pronouncing against divorce, yet receiving divorcees into membership? . . . . . . . . . . . .

      8. Do you think that divorcees (re-married or not) should be debarred by that fact from holding office in the Church? . . . . . . . . . . . .

      Signed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

      Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

      Your name and address is requested as a guarantee of good faith and not for publication of any sort without your consent.

      Detach questionnaire and send it to