-
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.
Biblical Marriage?
- Thread starter Mojo
- Start date
I couldn't make it through the whole article. Goofballs. Looks like posturing for their financial base.
NB - I won't ever argue the "one man, one woman" issue as a poly thang. I simply agree that marriage is in fact "one man, one woman", but where in the bible does it say you can only have one marriage? That often turns the conversation back to the real issue, the nature of the relationship between the one man and the one woman.
NB - I won't ever argue the "one man, one woman" issue as a poly thang. I simply agree that marriage is in fact "one man, one woman", but where in the bible does it say you can only have one marriage? That often turns the conversation back to the real issue, the nature of the relationship between the one man and the one woman.
I do give it a small thumbs up for the stance against sexual immorality this "Nashville Statement" represents... However, I'm soooooo sick of the phrase "one man with one woman" and even more disgusted that "Polygamy" is constantly lumped in along side of homosexuality! ... I mean really? ... freaking hello fellow believers in Christ... King David, Abraham, Jacob, ring any bells? ... come on people "homosexual sin" and "polygyny" cannot be lumped together any longer without the spokesperson being severely reeducated and corrected... BF Team ASSEMBLE!!!! Lol grrrrrr ... ok I'm done with my angry rant! Thanx for sharing Lord Mojo your Mojo-ness!
Speaking of "BF Team ASSEMBLE" (love that!), this is exactly the kind of thing we're talking about, isn't it? Finding things like this online and bringing them here as intel. This particular article doesn't allow comments (unless I missed that somewhere), so we can't organize a patrol to go out and mix it up, but it's still helpful to know what and who we're up against, and what they're thinking and what they're doing. Good show, Mojo!
So, I read some more about that Nashville Statement, in @Mojo's original post...
Basically, a bunch of top-notch Evangelical theologians got together, under the banner of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and wrote it as (among other things) a defense of Complementarianism, and a rejection of Egalitarianism, Homosexuality and Transgenderism. The Signatory list is an impressive who's-who of evangelical theologians: Piper, Dobson, Packer, Mohler, Sproul, MacAurthur, Rainey, DeMoss, Begg, Alcorn, Graham, etc...
Of course, the document does denounce polygamy in Article I:
But it also rejects feminist egalitarianism in Article IV:
If it's any consolation (its not), the most contentious article, Article X, at least doesn't exclude polygamists.
On the one hand, this is pretty much all standard stuff in evangelical circles, nothing revolutionary. On the other hand, while essentially an affirmation of the Christian status quo updated for modern times, it is very much seen as taking a counter-cultural stand by the signatories because of how much the culture has departed in the past decades.
Now here's where it gets interesting... I did a bit of searching on the CBMW page regarding patriarchy, and I found this old article from 2012 discussing a debate about whether Complementarianism meant the same as Patriarchy (male-headship), and the answer basically seemed to be, yes: and that's why Egalitarians are winning the debate. The pro-patriarch position was taken by Dr. Russell Moore, who is one of the signatories of the Nashville Statement, and apparently at least some of the other signatories believe that they are affirming biblical patriarchy with this document. Dr. Moore is sensitive to the fact that people are often claiming to be complementarian/patriahal but not practically living that way: “What I fear is that we have many people in evangelicalism who can check off ‘complementarian’ on a box but who really aren’t living out complementarian lives.”
Dr. Moore also wrote a really good article (worth reading) called "After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians Are Winning the Gender Debate" (PDF) where he examines various social data, and criticizes what he calls "soft patriarchy". Some highlights
So close...
Basically, a bunch of top-notch Evangelical theologians got together, under the banner of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and wrote it as (among other things) a defense of Complementarianism, and a rejection of Egalitarianism, Homosexuality and Transgenderism. The Signatory list is an impressive who's-who of evangelical theologians: Piper, Dobson, Packer, Mohler, Sproul, MacAurthur, Rainey, DeMoss, Begg, Alcorn, Graham, etc...
Of course, the document does denounce polygamy in Article I:
Nashville Statement said:
But it also rejects feminist egalitarianism in Article IV:
I think most or all here would agree with that statement, although, it seems largely without teeth, as it does not define what those differences are. Of course, even saying that much gets them painted as misogynists and bigots.Nashville Statement said:
If it's any consolation (its not), the most contentious article, Article X, at least doesn't exclude polygamists.
Nashville Statement said:
On the one hand, this is pretty much all standard stuff in evangelical circles, nothing revolutionary. On the other hand, while essentially an affirmation of the Christian status quo updated for modern times, it is very much seen as taking a counter-cultural stand by the signatories because of how much the culture has departed in the past decades.
Now here's where it gets interesting... I did a bit of searching on the CBMW page regarding patriarchy, and I found this old article from 2012 discussing a debate about whether Complementarianism meant the same as Patriarchy (male-headship), and the answer basically seemed to be, yes: and that's why Egalitarians are winning the debate. The pro-patriarch position was taken by Dr. Russell Moore, who is one of the signatories of the Nashville Statement, and apparently at least some of the other signatories believe that they are affirming biblical patriarchy with this document. Dr. Moore is sensitive to the fact that people are often claiming to be complementarian/patriahal but not practically living that way: “What I fear is that we have many people in evangelicalism who can check off ‘complementarian’ on a box but who really aren’t living out complementarian lives.”
Dr. Moore also wrote a really good article (worth reading) called "After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians Are Winning the Gender Debate" (PDF) where he examines various social data, and criticizes what he calls "soft patriarchy". Some highlights
So close...
I was super busy at the time I posted this, so I only linked, but provided no context or commentary.
I have no problems with the intent. I have no problems with 95% of content. I just don't think it's intellectually, biblically honest. It plays to their base supporters, but doesn't go far enough. Why the need to specifically reject polygamy? I think it was a wink and nod against Muslims. Just stop at polyamory, as none of us see that as biblical (free sex from any gender without covenant).
It's a dying subculture trying to maintain a hold of what it is losing fast in an aging demographic.
I have no problems with the intent. I have no problems with 95% of content. I just don't think it's intellectually, biblically honest. It plays to their base supporters, but doesn't go far enough. Why the need to specifically reject polygamy? I think it was a wink and nod against Muslims. Just stop at polyamory, as none of us see that as biblical (free sex from any gender without covenant).
It's a dying subculture trying to maintain a hold of what it is losing fast in an aging demographic.
I don't disagree
Is this dying subculture, the one that advances "traditional marriage", as being effectively the biblical definition of marriage?
So... I read the whole vox article. I really enjoyed this bit:
"Many conservatives, including those who signed the Nashville document, see a reactionary position on sexual ethics as a necessary corrective to a liberal, sexually permissive society. Their Christianity is “counter-cultural” precisely because it is not progressive.
But at the same time, many progressives, including the proponents of the queer theology movement, see something no less “counter-cultural” in a willingness to challenge traditional social norms — about gender, about sex, about identity — in favor of a more radical approach to love. Racism, sexism, homophobia — all these are the very hallmarks of culture that their Christianity seeks to combat."
So... you decided to make a question of LGBTQ into the unholy triad of Racism, sexism, and "homophobia", where does this Nashville document advocate lynching African Americans?
Couch your invented homophobia elsewhere, please. I don't know anyone in any mainstream Christian circles, Conservative or otherwise, that one should imply aren't against racism.
It's just more conservative bashing. Thanks, Vox.
"Many conservatives, including those who signed the Nashville document, see a reactionary position on sexual ethics as a necessary corrective to a liberal, sexually permissive society. Their Christianity is “counter-cultural” precisely because it is not progressive.
But at the same time, many progressives, including the proponents of the queer theology movement, see something no less “counter-cultural” in a willingness to challenge traditional social norms — about gender, about sex, about identity — in favor of a more radical approach to love. Racism, sexism, homophobia — all these are the very hallmarks of culture that their Christianity seeks to combat."
So... you decided to make a question of LGBTQ into the unholy triad of Racism, sexism, and "homophobia", where does this Nashville document advocate lynching African Americans?
Couch your invented homophobia elsewhere, please. I don't know anyone in any mainstream Christian circles, Conservative or otherwise, that one should imply aren't against racism.
It's just more conservative bashing. Thanks, Vox.
Not sure I understand your question, but my reference to aging subculture is the aging "religious right/Christian conservative" demographic. It is not what it once was. Look at the list of signatures and factor in average age of each...probably average age of 75?
Like I said, I don't disagree with the intent, or the overwhelming majority of its sentiments. I'm just a realist.
Mojo, you had commented about a dying subculture.
I was not sure exactly which dying subculture you were referring to.
The one I supposed that you were referring to is the one that professes Christianity and is the champion of "traditional marriage", but lumps polygyny in with same-sex "marriage". This includes most of mainstream Christianity.
Thank you.
I was not sure exactly which dying subculture you were referring to.
The one I supposed that you were referring to is the one that professes Christianity and is the champion of "traditional marriage", but lumps polygyny in with same-sex "marriage". This includes most of mainstream Christianity.
Thank you.
I think both apply!
Although not a polygamy supporter, Dalrock often writes about the weak support for patriarchy that the CBWM provides:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/?s=CBMW
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/?s=CBMW
It is a bummer that Vox doesn't seem to have commenting in it's articles. At least, not this one. I wouldn't share or link it because it would just get that much more traffic.
The CBMW claims to be complementarian, but they are very much egalitarian in words and deeds. Weak, spineless, globs of jellyfish in a blender...
The CBMW claims to be complementarian, but they are very much egalitarian in words and deeds. Weak, spineless, globs of jellyfish in a blender...
I just wanted to post a question about this, before I saw this post. Here's the link I read: https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement/
Question 1. Do you generally agree with the statement except for the polygamy part?
Question 2. Can anyone explain to me what "polyamorous" is and what's our attitude to it?
Question 1. Do you generally agree with the statement except for the polygamy part?
Question 2. Can anyone explain to me what "polyamorous" is and what's our attitude to it?
Question 1 - No opinion.
Question 2 - "Polyamorous" generally refers to the widest possible definition of free love, in the sense that a person can have multiple partners of either gender. A sort of 'group love' that would be recognizable, for example, in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. It generally connotes some sort of stable arrangement (by which I mean the current partners see themselves as stable and "in a set of relationships") short of group marriage but more attached than just being a complete promiscuous single slut. There is a kind of relationship umbrella that tends to be a short to medium term arrangement (due partly to turnover in the makeup of the group).
I say "generally" because polyamory is a broad brush term that occasionally has its uses, and the idea that a person can "love more than one person" has its uses as well. Overall, though, we tend to dissociate from anything or anyone flying the polyamory flag. (I have in a couple of situations described my family as a "closed MFFF quad", though....)
Question 2 - "Polyamorous" generally refers to the widest possible definition of free love, in the sense that a person can have multiple partners of either gender. A sort of 'group love' that would be recognizable, for example, in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. It generally connotes some sort of stable arrangement (by which I mean the current partners see themselves as stable and "in a set of relationships") short of group marriage but more attached than just being a complete promiscuous single slut. There is a kind of relationship umbrella that tends to be a short to medium term arrangement (due partly to turnover in the makeup of the group).
I say "generally" because polyamory is a broad brush term that occasionally has its uses, and the idea that a person can "love more than one person" has its uses as well. Overall, though, we tend to dissociate from anything or anyone flying the polyamory flag. (I have in a couple of situations described my family as a "closed MFFF quad", though....)
Polyamory is the game you play when you want to find the good in something bad.
It's complicated is what it is. That's my definition. Complicated and messy.
Example. Joe and Sue are married. Sue also has a lesbian lover named Jane. Jane also has a lesbian partner named Nina. Nina identifies as gender fluid and also has a male lover named Grant. Joe has a lover named Sasha who comes around to stay the night whenever her husband is OK with it and Sue is off with Jane.
In theory Polygyny should fit into this category, but it rarely seems to. Most of the situations seem to be as I described above, and if you ever read an article on it they won't mention biblical polygyny at all, it's all about free love like Andrew said, and not about true commitment.
Example. Joe and Sue are married. Sue also has a lesbian lover named Jane. Jane also has a lesbian partner named Nina. Nina identifies as gender fluid and also has a male lover named Grant. Joe has a lover named Sasha who comes around to stay the night whenever her husband is OK with it and Sue is off with Jane.
In theory Polygyny should fit into this category, but it rarely seems to. Most of the situations seem to be as I described above, and if you ever read an article on it they won't mention biblical polygyny at all, it's all about free love like Andrew said, and not about true commitment.
1). Sure, but if you look back, I have stated that I think it's more a political/power move by some old dudes trying to retain their hold on a waning movement.
2) polyamory could include more than one man, and scripture never approves that....never.....ever.
There's a song title in there....