The final chapter of David Atkinson’s To Have and to
Hold: The Marriage Covenant and the Discipline of Divorce (St James’s
Place, London: Collins, 1979) explores the pastoral problems of divorce and
remarriage. See previous notes from chapter
1 (areas of disagreement), chapter
2 (historical sketch), chapter
3 (marriage as covenant), chapter
4 (background and biblical evidence), chapter 5 here
(principles for a Christian view of divorce) and here
(applications of these principles).
Atkinson notes that “divorce is often a symptom of a far
deeper problem in contemporary society – for Christians as for others – than simply
the personal failure of a particular couple within their marriage relationship”
(p. 181) The problem is not addressed by simply making divorce as
difficult as possible. “The pastoral problem for the Church...is how to foster
and encourage the personal qualities which make for covenant-faithfulness and
commitment, even within the pressures of contemporary society.” (p. 183)
“As Michael Pollitt rightly comments: ‘education for and
within marriage is a much more urgent matter than the question of the
remarriage of divorced people.’” (p. 184) Furthermore, without dismissing the role of other agencies, “it
is the duty of the Church to be an agent of reconciliation” where there is a
threat to a marriage. (p. 186) “Whatever the practical steps needed, the Church
has a duty to make itself known, and inspire confidence in its value, as the
agency within which the reconciling grace of God can become a reality in the
strained relationships of marriage breakdown. And it must work towards
establishing as a regular procedure, the use of that agency as a first resort
by married couples at times of marital distress.” (p. 187)
When marriages are broken: “For too long the primary stance
of the Church to people who have been divorced has been one of condemnation or
rejection...The Christian community needs to learn how to express compassion
towards the divorced person as ‘victim’ [not only agent of divorce].” (p. 188)
“Part of the pastoral question for the Church is to ask how
best it can be an agency of support and acceptance to the victims of divorce.
And the second pastoral question is how best the Church can aid the divorced
person, and his or her family, in finding ‘the Father’s will’ for their future.”
(p. 188) Atkinson elaborates this in terms of guilt and feelings of guilt,
receiving and extending forgiveness, and “for some, but surely not all, the
covenanted obligation of sexual exclusiveness may lead them to view their
future life as divorcee as a calling to celibacy” (p. 189).
“The moral question of the propriety of repeating lifelong
vows is not as central as some argue.” (p. 189) While failure to uphold a vow
reduces one’s moral credibility, it does not preclude the genuine possibility
to make another life-long vow with utter sincerity.
“Whereas, therefore, the moral question concerning the right
of remarriage may be fairly clear, the pastoral question as to the Church’s
role in such remarriage, in particular whether or not it should give its
blessing to any particular remarriage, is much more complex. The Church has
other needs to consider than only those of the couple concerned; it is here
that the tension between the Church’s prophetic and pastoral callings can be
most acute.” (p. 190)
“The practice of refusing to marry any divorced
person with the Church’s blessing seems unfortunately to witness only to the
fact that Church law must always come before personal need. And yet, of course,
indiscriminate remarriage on demand would seem to speak of a God of cheap grace
who is blind to sin. If the Church is to give its blessing to some who seek
remarriage after divorce, it needs first to be sure that it is pastorally
possible to operate a consistent, fair and adequate discrimination...The only
feasible criteria on which the Church can decide whether or not it is
appropriate to give its blessing concern not degrees of guilt, but present
attitude.” (p. 191)
“The Church’s blessing for any marriage should be reserved
only for those who share its view of marriage, and the condition (with respect
to the couple) on which the Church’s blessing on second marriage should be
decided, is penitence for past sin and a genuine desire to seek God’s grace for
a new marriage which accords with his pattern.” (p. 191)
After exploring three options, Atkinson concludes: “Assuming
that after pastoral consultation, the parish priest and the couple believe in
conscience that it is appropriate to have a church service for their marriage –
and, to aid the priest in his decision, a diocesan panel may well be a helpful
advisory aid – it would appear that neither the Marriage Service as it stands,
nor a Service of Blessing following civil marriage, gives adequate witness to
the view that God’s will for marriage is for permanence, that divorce is sin,
but that sin can be forgiven. The most satisfactory option appears to be a
procedure which combines adequate pastoral preparation with a liturgical
service which itself gives appropriate witness to the Church’s prophetic and
pastoral roles. A form of service is needed, in which the marriage itself is
included, which can act in a discriminatory way by expressing both God’s will
for marriage and penitence for the sin of divorce. If both such facts are
publicly declared in the liturgy itself, the important distinctions in the
Church’s witness between first and second marriages can be maintained.” (p.
194)
