David Atkinson, in the fifth chapter of To Have and to
Hold: The Marriage Covenant and the Discipline of Divorce (St James’s
Place, London: Collins, 1979), articulates six principles “as basis for a
Christian view of divorce in our contemporary society.”
(a) In the teaching of Jesus we must reject any
antithesis between an ‘ethic of law’ and an ‘ethic of disposition’: both
belong together within ‘covenant ethics’.
(b) The ‘Father’s will’ for marriage has a general
validity for all [people]. The ethical teaching of Jesus removes all
limitation from the sphere of validity of divine law.
(c) The Messianic ‘gift of righteousness’ provides the
possibility for the fulfilment of the Father’s will.
(d) We must be careful not to interpret the teaching of
Jesus as a new law code by which the Father’s will is achieved.
(e) The New Testament speaks both of the Father’s will
and of his concessions because of sin.
(f) We are not, therefore, to place the covenant ethic of
the law of love which fulfils the Father’s will over against the juridical
sphere of civil legislation.
Drawing these points together in the context of our
discussion of divorce, therefore, we conclude that civil divorce legislation
needs first to provide a context in which covenant love in the marriage
relationship can flourish and be maintained: in which the harvest of the Spirit
can grow (and therefore should provide sufficient barriers to easy divorce that
divorce is never a first option, but always the tragic last resort); second,
to provide for the maximising of support and aid in reconciliation for the hard
times; and third, to regulate the ways in which marriage covenant may be
terminated in line with the principles of order and justice.” (pp. 143-151)
Two further citations in the context of discussing the
penultimate principle:
“By referring to creation (‘from the beginning it was not
so’; Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6), and by bringing divorce under the heading of the
seventh commandment (Matt. 5:32), Jesus proclaims the Father’s will for
marriage. By not rejecting the Mosaic ruling to regulate divorce, but regarding
it as a concession because of ‘hardness of heart’ (Matt. 19:8), though none the
less part of the law of God (the giving of a certificate was a ‘commandment’,
Mark 10:5), and by his own words (‘Every one who divorces...’; ‘Let no man put
asunder’), Jesus recognizes that the Father’s will may be thwarted by sin and
that social regulation of divorce therefore becomes necessary.
St Paul likewise distinguished between the will of God for permanence and the
need for specific rulings if that will was not adhered to. The affirmation of
the law of God for marriage cannot therefore be taken to imply that there is no
place for legislation to regulate divorce within a sinful world.” (pp. 147-148)
“It has been the consistent view of theologians of the
Reformed tradition (exemplified most clearly in Reformation times, perhaps, by
Peter Martyr), that Christian thinking on the subject of divorce needs to hold
two principles firmly together: the permanence of the marriage covenant in
principle and divorce as a tragic, but real, exception. The essential moral
force of Jesus’ affirmation of the will of God for marriage implies the
following principles. First, that the permanence of marriage is not merely an
ideal. Marriage is in fact a covenant in which permanence is not only possible,
but indeed is part of the very meaning of what covenant is about. Secondly,
divorce must therefore always be seen as sin or the result of sin, involving
social evil as well as personal tragedy.” (p. 148)
