Most of us will find it odd that they are accusing you of adultery of the mind, when the only stance you have taken, is that PM is not wrong, and you are not actively seeking poly, or even attempting to get her on board with it.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Prayer request Meeting the Pastors
- Thread starter Gary Slaughenhaupt
- Start date
No, and the rest of the answer is the very first post in this thread.
Feels like it.
For awhile I thought if she was onboard that she could release me from the monogamous vow but God convinced me that the vow was made to Him and He would not release me. So yes the adultery of the mind is based on me talking about desires to have a possible relationship in an unlikely future. But they hear lust instead of desire and turn the abstract concepts into lustful imaginings because of their blindness. At least that is my opinion.
It may be a helpful reminder that a woman cannot divorce her husband, she can only leave.
To clarify, in a marriage from the state, she can "divorce", but from the biblical view, a real marriage, she can't. Any passage mentioning a woman divorcing is either a liberty taken in translation, or addressed to a culture where marriages involved the state. Because state "divorce" and a woman leaving are often concurrent, the concepts can get conflated.
Think of how we might refer to a branch being cut off – it's from the perspective of the tree (the body). We say, "that branch is cut off of the tree" not, "that tree is cut off from it's branch".
A cut branch can be grafted back in, but we do not graft trees back to branches, that's the wrong perspective.
The same could be said for a member of your body. The hand does not send it's body away in divorce, the body sends it's hand away.
Of course a woman can walk away of her own accord, but that's not divorce. If you label that as divorce, prepare for a lot of confusion in your study of the Bible. Biblical divorce is only when a man sends away a woman.
If she walks away, that is a lot more painful than divorce, because having your hand ripped from your body by outside forces is much more violent and shocking than deliberately anesthetizing, stabilizing, and amputating an infected/corrupted limb.
A violent removal is what is at risk here and that is why fighting back is in order, you have a right to self-defense of your own flesh.
This is why your brothers here want to help.
I'm sure you're already aware, but adultery of the mind can only occur when you desire another man's woman, so that's an incorrect application they are making. Desiring to be released from a vow to God has nothing to do with another man, not to mention his wife.
I had a conversation with a strong, biblically minded relative of mine. He was visiting from far away and, as is common with us, we started a biblical conversation. It was late in the evening and of course I steered the conversation towards patriarchy and the home. He's not been married too long, but both he and his wife are both committed believers. He mentioned something along the lines of "Happy wife, happy..." ( I can't bring myself to finish it). I was stunned! He and I come from a pretty conservative-fundamental background. I challenged him on it and finally agreed upon the hierarchy of marriage. We tossed around other issues. Then, I steered it to polygyny. I was surprised how emotive this otherwise rightly-dividing believer had become. He kept going back to "lust" as the motivation for why someone would want polygyny. His arguments were all over the place. I told him he was displaying poor hermeneutics and relying on complete eisegesis. He admitted to not studying it out too much, but did display the typical arguments from churchianity. We love each other so it ended well, but I was surprised at how easily LUST just came oozing out as his argument. I really do think the puritanical influences of the faith are more than we realize. A desire to have a wife and a bigger family is somehow lustful.
I made this same argument to the pastors. They have hardened hearts.
Yeah I used to be the happy wife guy. I understand where the are coming from.
Could that be where this struggle you are now in began? She was used to being the focus and being made happy?
Yes. It has been a two steps forwards, one step back struggle.
So, is she still thinking of leaving you? Is she still threatening? Sounds like you could call her bluff, and just blow it off as if it were a foolish vow to go give your word to follow whatever decision the leaders of the church came up with. It's like when James and John's mother approached Jesus, asking Him for a favor, without first telling Him what that favor would be. Jesus made sure she told Him before He declined to go along with it.
If they can only equate "desire" with "sexual lust", that is a problem in their own heads that they need to address before God...
I have to say that is really bad advice, and I would strongly recommend against taking it. Too many men have already had their wives leave over polygamy. Standard Christian women truly do believe this is serious enough to justify divorce - they are not bluffing, they are serious. This is what our culture teaches them, what they truly believe, and therefore what they are willing to actually do, if they feel they have no other solution. It's not a bluff.
Further to the "desire" = "lust" issue: This is a fundamental problem with the church. The church, as a whole, is hyper-sexualised, though they don't realise it. There is so much focus on avoiding sexual immorality, that sexual immorality has become too large a topic of thought. Churches are paranoid about issues like women's dress codes, pornography, dating practices, and so forth. Worthy issues for discussion, but overemphasised.
The fact that sexual sin is "against your own body", and therefore in a class different to other sins, is a true scriptural concept. But it is taken far too strongly.
But they are overemphasised by being underemphasised. They are not often preached about from the pulpit. Rather, they are taken for granted so much that there is no need to preach on them - some are too "dirty" to preach on anyway. Can't ever talk about premarital sex for instance other than occasionally vigorously condemning without discussion of its nuances - everybody has to know and teach how evil it is, and make sure they never admit if they did it themselves because that might encourage others to sin also. Project a facade of perfection and never actually discuss the ugly mess that exists here and there behind the facade. Everyone pretends to be perfect (both those who are in this area, and those who are not), in order to give a fake example of perfection for the children and youth to emulate. Or fail to emulate but in turn pretend they did to fit in with those who truly did emulate it...
And those who are guilty can be the most vigorous accusers of others, as they assume others also fall into the sins they have fallen into in the past (or even present), so are oversensitised to it and more likely to assume it is present. Then they can most vigorously condemn others for this real or imagined sin, as some sort of compensation or reaction to their own guilt.
It is well documented that many pastors struggle with pornography. How many pastors react so strongly to sexual sin in others, due to guilt over their own secret sexual sins? Do they desire to help others be perfect because, on some level, they feel that helping others to avoid sin will earn them brownie points with God that will offset in some way the condemnation He would give them for their own sin?
The fact that sexual sin is "against your own body", and therefore in a class different to other sins, is a true scriptural concept. But it is taken far too strongly.
But they are overemphasised by being underemphasised. They are not often preached about from the pulpit. Rather, they are taken for granted so much that there is no need to preach on them - some are too "dirty" to preach on anyway. Can't ever talk about premarital sex for instance other than occasionally vigorously condemning without discussion of its nuances - everybody has to know and teach how evil it is, and make sure they never admit if they did it themselves because that might encourage others to sin also. Project a facade of perfection and never actually discuss the ugly mess that exists here and there behind the facade. Everyone pretends to be perfect (both those who are in this area, and those who are not), in order to give a fake example of perfection for the children and youth to emulate. Or fail to emulate but in turn pretend they did to fit in with those who truly did emulate it...
And those who are guilty can be the most vigorous accusers of others, as they assume others also fall into the sins they have fallen into in the past (or even present), so are oversensitised to it and more likely to assume it is present. Then they can most vigorously condemn others for this real or imagined sin, as some sort of compensation or reaction to their own guilt.
It is well documented that many pastors struggle with pornography. How many pastors react so strongly to sexual sin in others, due to guilt over their own secret sexual sins? Do they desire to help others be perfect because, on some level, they feel that helping others to avoid sin will earn them brownie points with God that will offset in some way the condemnation He would give them for their own sin?
@Gary Slaughenhaupt,
It sounds like you have a needle to thread. How can you save face and stand by your principles, but not acquiese to your wife and these men? I'm not sure.
At this point, you're living various aspects of risk theory.
I can't give sound advise from experience because I've not traveled your road, nor do I know the intimate details of your marriage, but it seems like you may be reaping what you have sown over these years. You've pretty much admitted to living in a "Happy wife, happy life" marriage. Your wife is only acting out what she's been allowed to believe all these years. Even if she hadn't threatened to leave you, things would have gotten ugly eventually as she would have insisted on being made happy all along the way towards a plural marriage, then possibly sabotaged one.
I'm a fighter and don't like to back down or retreat, but you need to weigh the risks and rewards. This episode may be a divine wake up call to have you work on the marriage you have and delay taking on another that you don't have. Perhaps you need to retreat, or at least feign retreat while you let the Almighty help you devise another plan, build up your resources and train you at being a better field commander.
This is not a deliberately negative comment, but it seems like you went to war with a deficient army and battle plan. If what you've told us is true, I don't think she's bluffing either. Take it seriously. She's been scorned and is acting according to how society has taught her to react and how you may have implicitly allowed her to behave.
Seek the Lord in this. If you need our help and would like a phone call, email, or letter sent to them, please let us know.
It sounds like you have a needle to thread. How can you save face and stand by your principles, but not acquiese to your wife and these men? I'm not sure.
At this point, you're living various aspects of risk theory.
I can't give sound advise from experience because I've not traveled your road, nor do I know the intimate details of your marriage, but it seems like you may be reaping what you have sown over these years. You've pretty much admitted to living in a "Happy wife, happy life" marriage. Your wife is only acting out what she's been allowed to believe all these years. Even if she hadn't threatened to leave you, things would have gotten ugly eventually as she would have insisted on being made happy all along the way towards a plural marriage, then possibly sabotaged one.
I'm a fighter and don't like to back down or retreat, but you need to weigh the risks and rewards. This episode may be a divine wake up call to have you work on the marriage you have and delay taking on another that you don't have. Perhaps you need to retreat, or at least feign retreat while you let the Almighty help you devise another plan, build up your resources and train you at being a better field commander.
This is not a deliberately negative comment, but it seems like you went to war with a deficient army and battle plan. If what you've told us is true, I don't think she's bluffing either. Take it seriously. She's been scorned and is acting according to how society has taught her to react and how you may have implicitly allowed her to behave.
Seek the Lord in this. If you need our help and would like a phone call, email, or letter sent to them, please let us know.
True, although for him to even be on this site and read this material and respond to it, he already has gone against what they recommend. Perhaps for the time being, he should just avoid this site and other pro-poly sites, but of course, for him to leave his house and allow her to be under another man, I can only see how that would cause more harm than good.
A theology isn't adultery. And a desire resisted and reproved isn't adultery. It's resistance of adultery (if indeed poly would be adultery, which it isn't). I fail to see how there is a continuing problem under the lust/desire issue.
Do not accept this. Separation is just as un-Biblical as divorce (1 Cor 7:10).
If you are not thinking about women who are married to someone else it is not "adultery of the mind" no matter what you said in your vows. As is often repeated, the sin of adultery is about the woman's marriage status. Never the man's.
No. She is not supposed to leave either. 1 Cor 7:10.