R & M Report 2012 - Divorce

In the aftermath of the consultation process regarding same-sex marriage the impression may be left that the Churches in Scotland are united in their approach to marriage as a divine ordinance and in their determination to defend it as it is regulated by the Word of God. Sadly this is not the case and the attitudes to divorce and re-marriage evidence a very serious departure from Scripture even in Churches claiming to stand on the scriptural ground of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Church of Scotland has long ago shifted its position from the restrictions defined in the Confession. The Committee gave consideration to a document produced by the Free Church of Scotland which significantly changes the stance of this Church on the subject of divorce. A panel was set up by the General Assembly to prepare a study paper “in light of recent Biblical research,” and its report has been circulated to Presbyteries of the Free Church seeking their responses to a proposed new position on divorce. The Study Panel will submit its final report to the 2012 General Assembly.

The new position is that the true scriptural position allows for divorce, not only on the grounds of desertion and adultery, but also on the grounds of emotional and physical neglect and abuse. It is argued that such behaviour in a marriage is “an abandonment of the promises involved in a marriage, a rejection of the other.” This, it is argued, is “in essence desertion.” Conveniently “this could fit within the terms of the Confession.” This position may appear plausible and it is offered on the basis of arguments purporting to have scripture foundations. It is true that desertion needs to be defined, but the proposed definition is excessively wide. A whole range of things could come under the category of “neglect” and of “abandonment of promises involved in a marriage.” The arguments in favour of the new position are spurious and depend on extra-biblical propositions relating to Jewish customs.

However inadvertently, the whole endeavour looks remarkably similar to the very thing our Westminster divines warned against – “Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage.” The new definition seems to better fit the civil grounds of “irretrievable breakdown” which was demonstrated by a multitude of faults other than adultery or desertion. This position, which was the basis of legislation, (first introduced in 1937 and added to in 1967) has been largely discredited. The reason for this is due to the increased acrimony in divorce cases and the implications for courts that resulted from it. Present legislation favours the equally unscriptural no-fault divorce. We must maintain the Reformed position on this subject.