How Should We Then Live?

[Hugh McBryde]

Apologies to the Apologist first, for borrowing the Title. That would be Dr. Francis August Schaeffer. Without going into great detail, Dr. Schaeffer, as many of us are, was fond of posing questions. Questions in reality are easy, answers are not and that would be my thumbnail review of his book for now. It's been many years since I read it. A lifetime for many of us. I said this once before:

For day to day Christian living, the Gospel is elementary...as Hebrews declares."

The writer of Hebrews (whom most presume to be the Apostle Paul) says this:

Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.And this we will do if God permits."

Though his context is slightly different, the first message used to set up the discourse is that Salvation isn't important to the saved. It isn't important in the sense that it's a done deal and it's time to move along.

Oddly, though this forum shows no leanings toward Reformation views on Predestination and is more populated by those inclined to think Salvation can be lost (contradicted though it may be by Hebrews 6), we don't talk about walking the aisle as "Soul Winning" "Arminians" would. We do however, endlessly turn the soil on plural marriage, as if it were more important than Salvation to the saved, something I can't exactly agree with.

Are we so insecure that we have to talk about it all the time? Isn't it more important to discuss what we are as Believers (Christians or Messianics) than it is to discuss plural marriage ad nauseum? Granted, we're almost all of us here because of Christianity or Christian leanings or Messianic belief and it's combination with Plural marriage. If we're not, we're here out of curiosity about those things or close comradeship with those themes.

In that most of us are Christian/Messianic, How Should We Then LIVE?

I suppose it's a proof when we don't really think our Salvation is a thing that can be lost, when there is a dearth of discussion revolving around walking the aisle every time you feel a twinge of Satanic doubt about your Eternal Soul Condition. But like the "Soul Winners" obsessed with Salvation and Revival every night, we are obsessed with just one thing as well.

In our case it's Plural Marriage.

Are we that insecure? Aren't we here because in part we would not be welcome in a "mainstream" church and thus have sought to work out our own salvation, hopefully in the proper "fear and trembling" mindset? If Plural Marriage is acceptable, why do we spend all our time TALKING about it? Isn't it time to move on to what we are as normal God Fearing people before the LORD our God?

I've been away from the forum for about a year and a half since some of my friends were embroiled in controversy with the owners of this venue. That's worked itself out as far as I am concerned and no longer a factor. I've also taken leaves of absence before, simply because we don't address tough issues and all we discuss is one thing.

That's beyond boring.

There is a section of this forum to which all are not admitted, it is in the PRIVATE section, and it hasn't been posted to in all of 2012. I was one of the most frequent contributors. Some of you can't see it, and when it's behind the scenes, no one wants to post there.

Let's just say that the reasons are positive, that no one wishes to hide their light under a bushel and leave it at that.

Three of about five people most recently posting in that section are no longer with the board, either by sulking (you might count me that way), or absenting themselves completely from the forum to the extent that their ID's no longer exist. Posting there seems to be the way to quickly marginalize yourself. In more ways than simply not being seen by the rest of you.

So are we serious about our Faith in Christ, or are we just obsessed with having more than one woman with whom to sleep?

 

[sola scriptura]

I would appreciate being involved in an in-depth study of a specific passage of scripture. It would be a good theological and spiritual exercise and would be a blessing to me.

I understand the need for discussing some issues related to PM, especially with those that are new to the board, but I agree that beating a dead horse eventually loses interest.

Katie

 

[FollowingHim]

I agree polygyny is a comparatively minor part of Christian theology. If it's the only thing someone ever talks about, there's something seriously wrong.

Remember the key purpose of this website though: Supporting Christian marriages. The key focus is fellowship, emotional support, advice and friendship for people who are unable to get support from the usual sources you would with a monogamous marriage. An important part of this is support in Biblical understanding, so people know both how to live their own lives and how to defend their choices when challenged by other Christians.

Marriage is only one small part of Christianity. Yet people come here to find out about it. If we spend all the time here discussing other things, they won't find that information when they look for it. There are a lot of other places around the internet that provide a forum for heavy debates of other Biblical issues, we don't need to cover everything here.

Just because we mainly talk about polygyny on this particular site certainly does NOT mean that we only ever think and talk about polygyny in the rest of our lives!

Having said that, we are all here because we are willing to accept Scripture as our guide even when the world opposes it. It is good to discuss other issues together to help us to have greater faith in all areas. I have had many profitable discussions here that have not been about polygyny, and have learnt a lot and made changes in my own life as a result. That's "fellowship". So if there is a particular issue you believe would be profitable to discuss, or would like input on, by all means feel free to post it in this "Other Biblical Issues" subforum - that's exactly what it's there for. I too would enjoy these discussions.

 

[ChrisM]

As Samuel said, we allow other discussion here on the various sections of this forum, you are welcome to use them. If we find the discussion to be contradictory to the Bible, then we will correct, delete, or archive those things. Some tend to forget that we own this site and provide it free of charge, and so we regulate it as we wish, and some times we may make decisions too hastily, other times we may not act quickly enough. We welcome at those times respectful and profitable challenges, and we usually contact those involved to let them know why we did what we did. Too often in our day, there is a supposition that anyone can speak freely about whatever they wish wherever they wish. While this is true generally, as responsible stewards we have an obligation to remove content that we believe is unprofitable due to being argumentative, defamatory, incorrect, or anything we choose. We try not to use this power unless necessary as we do want folks to enjoy and have freedom. We are not tyrants as some suppose, but rather Biblical Christians whose goal is to glorify God in Christ Jesus our Lord, and who will do what we feel is necessary to keep that goal going forward.

Sadly, I think part of why we don't talk about other issues is that we would alienate many on the forums, including members whose history precedes my own. We are doing our best to serve Christians, and we hope that those reject Christ (Romans 1:18-23) would see in marriage that picture of Christ and His blood bought bride, and by so doing repent and turn to Christ for salvation. http://www.equippedambassador.com/p/what-is-gospel.html

We recognize that there are some who participate on the forums who reject the Biblical Christ, and we ask them to identify themselves as such, whether atheist, agnostic, Mormon, "nothin'arian" or otherwise so we all know up front who we are dealing with. As one whose desire is more about evangelism than polygamy, I would rather talk about many other things, yet we recognize a need that seems to be unfulfilled for the most part regarding marriage and so this site exists.

Nathan, Doc, and myself put together a set of guidelines for the forums and we do consider input from our members. We are primarily a Christian plural marriage group and as that is the majority of the attack on God's Word in our day to day lives (especially for those who have multiple wives) we do tend to focus on that issue. Our teaching articles and newsletters are often more about marriage, family, and Christian living. We recognize that there are Calvinists, Arminians, post trib, pre trib, amillenial, and such in our midst who get their beliefs from various understandings of God's Word, and where those differences do not necessitate division (matters of salvation and condoning or promoting sinful activities) we tend to leave discussions alone and let people talk them over.

We are always praying and talking about future plans, changes to be made, and such as a staff. We also all have families, many have local church responsibilities along with work, etc. I believe that for the most part those who are living as Biblical families don't have much time for the computer, especially those with children, as there are only so many hours in the day. Thanks for opening this discussion, one that I hope leads to many more Biblical, profitable, edifying discussions that exalt the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[CecilW]

Chiming in with my 2 cents ... I've posted more times to this forum than anyone else. Period. (So far as I know.)

But if you talk to me outside of the Biblical Families context, you will hear much about other areas of the Christian walk, and little to nothing about PM.

It's all about CONTEXT, amigo. And the context of THIS forum seems to me to be primarily that of, well, Biblical FAMILIES, including PM, not Biblical wrangling in general. Lots of other sites promote that. *shrug*

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I agree polygyny is a comparatively minor part of Christian theology. If it's the only thing someone ever talks about, there's something seriously wrong."

Seriously? We have people declaring on this forum that they're FINALLY realizing the dream of living in plural marriage after 6 years of trying to find someone. That's an over emphasis.

Granted, it's not one on YOUR part but it's truly bizarre. I too have an interest in plural marriage but it certainly doesn't dominate my life. The features of being married are gained by one marriage. I don't seek to be married to more than one.

As a "for instance" I do have an interest in expanding my business with family members. At the present time, the only way to accomplish that would be through additional wives, so I'd want them for that reason. That's not very romantic though and no one has even scratched at the doorway of that idea, so I've moved on to another form of expanding the business. I'm not interested in additional wives therefore, but I could see how they'd get me to the next level in my business pursuits.

Remember the key purpose of this website though: Supporting Christian marriages."

Great. Mine is Christian. How does the constant focus on plural marriage address the support of my marriage?

Just because we mainly talk about polygyny on this particular site certainly does NOT mean that we only ever think and talk about polygyny in the rest of our lives!"

Yet there are those, myself not being the only one, that see this as really the only topic. My concern is that once you bring a large group of people together over the issue of plural marriage because it is supported by scripture, several things happen.

One of them is plural marriage shouldn't be important anymore, we all agree on it.

Another should be that we all agree that the Bible is the rule for Faith and Practice. That's a direct side effect of taking scripture as our guide and accepting as a result, plural marriage.

Scripture says that the "emotional support" we seek as Christians is growth in the word and to move from "milk" to "solid food." I was one of the original invited members here at this forum. I'm do not see weaning occurring.

We also had a discussion closed just recently in the last two days after a member had essentially declared they didn't see scripture as the rule for Faith and Practice. I wonder how "Biblical" we are when again, only plural marriage is the practice we can glean from it.

So if there is a particular issue you believe would be profitable to discuss, or would like input on, by all means feel free to post it in this 'Other Biblical Issues' subforum - that's exactly what it's there for. I too would enjoy these discussions."

But no one has an interest. There hasn't been a post to that forum since 2011. It's 2013. Interest is defined in a different way. The only conclusion I can draw is that the forum is there to deal with malcontents, myself apparently being one of them. Mark no longer posts here. John Whitten no longer posts here, and Keith "Allen" no longer posts here. Check and see that most of the contributions in that venue in 2011 were from myself, and those persons. Lessee...I'm the only one still posting here and that's because I started doing so again, a few days ago, or it would be four out of four.

As Samuel said, we allow other discussion here on the various sections of this forum, you are welcome to use them. If we find the discussion to be contradictory to the Bible, then we will correct, delete, or archive those things."

That is not what occurred in the most recently locked issue. The discussion was derided as becoming a "debate club." The equal distribution of responsibility for that supposed deterioration was on all the participants, yet one participant refused to accept scripture as authoritative and his statements became clearer and clearer to be that scripture, at least in the Hebrew, wasn't reliable. Paul said they'd been preserved in one of his letters. Just how Biblical are we if we can't stand up and say "The Bible Tells Me So?"

Some tend to forget that we own this site and provide it free of charge, and so we regulate it as we wish..."

Well, that's just a threat. And you're answerable to God. You (meaning Biblical families), invited me here, here I am.

I think part of why we don't talk about other issues is that we would alienate many on the forums, including members whose history precedes my own."

The LORD can win with any number, that's why there was a flood once.

I would appreciate being involved in an in-depth study of a specific passage of scripture. It would be a good theological and spiritual exercise and would be a blessing to me."

There are a number of things that spring to mind, not the least of which is how do we form a community, so far apart?

Christians have a need for REAL fellowship, face to face contact.

We need to educate our children properly.

We need to confess our sins one to another, face to face.

We should take communion.

We should baptize.

With regret, we must sometimes discipline.

This is only a small partial list.

 

[eternitee]

You are correct Cecil:
Cecil W 2355 total posts
Steve 1521
SweetLissa 1482

 

[FollowingHim]

I agree polygyny is a comparatively minor part of Christian theology. If it's the only thing someone ever talks about, there's something seriously wrong."

Seriously? We have people declaring on this forum that they're FINALLY realizing the dream of living in plural marriage after 6 years of trying to find someone. That's an over emphasis.

If I said "Finally I've managed to marry one wife after six years of searching for her", I'm sure you would be very happy for me, and would not call that an overemphasis on monogamy. So why if I later said "Finally I've managed to marry a second wife after six years of searching for her" would that be an overemphasis on polygamy? If polygamy is as acceptable as monogamy, why not seek it?

Some choose to seek one wife. Some choose to seek more than one. Some choose to not seek a wife at all. Some seek marriage for romantic reasons. Some seek it for practical reasons. I don't see a problem with any of those options, they just don't all work for me.

Scripture says that the "emotional support" we seek as Christians is growth in the word and to move from "milk" to "solid food." I was one of the original invited members here at this forum. I'm do not see weaning occurring.

This site is not a static group of people who have been learning and growing together for the past few years. New members sign up every day, and many of these are in need of "milk". So even as individuals move on to "solid food", the discussion here will consist of both this and a decent amount of "milk", to cater for the wide range of people on this website. That is a very good thing.

So if there is a particular issue you believe would be profitable to discuss, or would like input on, by all means feel free to post it in this 'Other Biblical Issues' subforum - that's exactly what it's there for. I too would enjoy these discussions."

But no one has an interest. There hasn't been a post to that forum since 2011. It's 2013.

This discussion we are having right now is in the "Other Biblical Issues" subforum...

 

[Hugh McBryde]

First and foremost. "My Bad." I thought you referred to the "Deeper Discussion" section and anyone who had read what you wrote for content, wouldn't have thought that.

But no one has an interest. There hasn't been a post to that forum since 2011. It's 2013."

This discussion we are having right now is in the 'Other Biblical Issues' subforum..."

Forgive me.

(T)he context of THIS forum seems to me to be primarily that of, well, Biblical FAMILIES, including PM, not Biblical wrangling in general."

It would seem that you classify any discussion of scripture as "Biblical wrangling." I have no idea how we decide what is true, unless we talk about it. Most of what I have "wrangled" about lately is that you can't base ideas of "Biblical Marriage" on anything but the Bible, and when you degrade that as a source, someone in the administration of this forum needs to stand up and discount any conclusions that arise from a degraded view of scripture.

An example:

I said previously, the original Hebrew texts are not available and fragments of the oldest Hebrew texts available disagree with the commonly accepted Hebrew text of the Masoretes in use today. Thus, we don't have the original inspired Word."

From this the poster argues a basis for another race of beings on the earth, with which humans may have interacted sexually and reproduced. Using scripture alone, such conclusions are swept aside as impossible.

Hugh, please don't take what I said in grace and make me out to be some pansy."

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm guessing what you're referring to is the closing of threads. Beyond that, I'm lost.

Oddly enough, those things you mentioned we need are exactly the subject of emails between staff as to what we hope to work toward at Biblical Families. I have one wife, I don't want another and so my focus has been on marriage general. If you are looking for teaching on that, I personally suggest Voddie Baucham, a reformed Baptist from Texas."

You misunderstand me it seems, entirely. I'm not looking for teaching for my needs, I'm saying as a group, you're not teaching per se. You're dwelling on plural marriage.

If you would like to be the one to make the first step, then please do. In fact, please if you post to a topic of "meat" and I happen to miss it, then shoot me a private message and ask me to join in. I would rather have those discussions anyway, as I would rather learn from those more learned and experienced than myself. I look forward to your first post."

I guess it's only fair that you seem to misunderstand. I have over 400 posts, so if I'm not the one misunderstanding what you're saying, (as I've done recently, here), then the "meat" we're talking about is all over the "Deeper discussion (and respectful debate)" section of this board.

I thought in fact, that this thread was kinda "meaty."

If I said 'Finally I've managed to marry one wife after six years of searching for her', I'm sure you would be very happy for me, and would not call that an overemphasis on monogamy. So why if I later said 'Finally I've managed to marry a second wife after six years of searching for her' would that be an overemphasis on polygamy? If polygamy is as acceptable as monogamy, why not seek it?"

The basic need of marriage, is met by being married.

I am happy when someone finds a second or third or tenth wife. What I don't understand is why someone would simply SEEK an additional wife. I gave a personal example that I have a family need/business need (I see them in a "patriarchal" sense as very similar) that would be addressed by an additional wife. I of course had other ways of addressing this need, but another wife would have worked. I addressed that need in the end with another solution, other than a wife, and thus the "need" for the next wife subsided.

I say this because I have largely met my needs with my existing wife. I would be very reluctant to try and "better" my situation by filling in areas with another person that my beloved might not be so good at. I've found a pretty good thing as it is. If there was some quantum leap forward that another wife would supply to the whole family, we'd be back on again but I'm not going to try to make a perfect wife out of the one I have by trying to fill in her few blanks with another woman. That's the fable of the dog with the bone.

 

[Oreslag]

An example:

I said previously, the original Hebrew texts are not available and fragments of the oldest Hebrew texts available disagree with the commonly accepted Hebrew text of the Masoretes in use today. Thus, we don't have the original inspired Word."

From this the poster argues a basis for another race of beings on the earth, with which humans may have interacted sexually and reproduced. Using scripture alone, such conclusions are swept aside as impossible.

This is a gross mischaracterization of my position and the point I was making on that thread. You've excluded many facts that argue to a conclusion opposite to the one you make above. In particular:

Ocham's razor applies here: The simplest explanation that fits the available facts is most likely to be correct. In this case:
- Choice 1 is not stated directly, but works with the addition of no extra people than those mentioned in scripture, and fits all other doctrine very neatly as well.
- Choice 2 only works with the addition of a load of speculative ideas about other races etc.
So although technically neither is directly stated, one is a whole lot more likely.

But even before Ocham's razor, Deuteronomy 4:2 applies: "You shall not add to the saying which I give charge to you, and you shall not remove from it."

Thus, we first need acknowledge that the bible does not identify who Cain took for a wife.

We second need to be sure we never make the false claim that "God says" Choice 1 or Choice 2, for He did not; if you believe Choice 1 or Choice 2, you did so through inference based upon assumptions God did not declare.

And last we need to accept that personal belief in Choice 1 or Choice 2 should have nothing to do with whether or not you believe a brother or sister is in Christ.

My position is quite clear from this quote. Choice 1 was Cain marrying a female relative (e.g. sister, neice, etc.), and Choice 2 was Cain marrying "other." How in the world do you read the italicized portion above and conclude I'm arguing that I've chosen one or the other as truth?

To clarify even further, whereas the bible gives no details regarding Cain's wife, to state anything certain requires an assumption. Inference built on assumption is only true if the assumption is also true. One assumption you seem to disregard is that God may have chosen not to include information He deemed was unnecessary for our training in righteousness.

Regarding the notion of another race of beings on earth that procreated with humans, how do you sweep that aside from scripture when Genesis 6:1-4 refers to this being exactly the case? Presumably you believe there are no others besides these; but God never declares that He included everything that can be known in His word. Thus, if you declare that "God says" from scripture on the basis of such an assumption you are stepping into the realm of "adding to or removing from" the scripture; which we are commanded not to do (i.e. no assumptions associated with this command - positive declarative statement: "You shall not").

This was the point I was trying to drive home during that entire discussion: we sin when we declare our opinions to be God's truth.

Regarding peace, I have no issue with discussion or even heated debate. I do however ask that if anyone is going to represent my thoughts on a matter or tell others what I think or judge my motives, check with me first; preferably privately, but publicly if necessary. In this way we can avoid what Paul fears in 2 Corinthians 12:20.

 

[FollowingHim]

Let's not start the Cain's wife debate again here. Oreslag is challenging us to be careful not to assume anything that is not in the Bible, and although I disagree with aspects of his conclusions I do think that challenge is a very important one to constantly bear in mind. Hugh is reminding us to stick by what the Bible says and base our thinking on that. Both of you are fundamentally saying the same sort of thing, but in very opposite ways, and rubbing each other up the wrong way in the process. This has ceased to be profitable.

The basic need of marriage, is met by being married.

I am happy when someone finds a second or third or tenth wife. What I don't understand is why someone would simply SEEK an additional wife. I gave a personal example that I have a family need/business need (I see them in a "patriarchal" sense as very similar) that would be addressed by an additional wife. I of course had other ways of addressing this need, but another wife would have worked. I addressed that need in the end with another solution, other than a wife, and thus the "need" for the next wife subsided.

I say this because I have largely met my needs with my existing wife. I would be very reluctant to try and "better" my situation by filling in areas with another person that my beloved might not be so good at. I've found a pretty good thing as it is. If there was some quantum leap forward that another wife would supply to the whole family, we'd be back on again but I'm not going to try to make a perfect wife out of the one I have by trying to fill in her few blanks with another woman. That's the fable of the dog with the bone.

The idea that "the basic need of marriage is met by being married" is your own opinion. Where is this in scripture?

I do however agree that it would be extremely foolish to simply want another wife because you saw flaws in your first and wanted to fill the gaps with someone else rather than working to improve your relationship with your first wife. Sadly this can seem an easier option to some, and can cause disasters. It's the reason for many affairs.

I agree that a wife should only be sought for a reason. But everybody does everything for a reason - sometimes the reasons are better than other times, that's all. Anyone seeking an additional wife does so for a reason. If I had been seeking an additional wife for six years because I wanted her help with a business venture, would that be an overemphasis on polygamy or would it be ok? If I were to seek an additional wife purely because I felt that I had the capacity to meet the needs of more than one woman and realised there are many hurting women in the world who could do with a loving husband, would that be wrong or ok? If I were to seek an additional wife purely because I wanted more sex, would that be wrong or ok? Where is the line?

There is no line in scripture, this is something for each individual to work out for themselves. It is inconsistent to state that someone should not seek an additional wife, then say it would have been ok in your situation. Everyone's situation is different, and we need to help people in the real situations they are in rather than presuming they are all the same as us.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I have also noticed that depending on who you talk to, meat is hard to define. Would one consider issues such as election, predestination, and eschatology to be milk or meat?"

The first "meaty" issue I think that needs to be addressed is fellowship. Scriptural fellowship is commanded and churches are set up to meet the needs of the local believing community. They provide courts for dispute resolution, welfare for the deserving aged, communion and baptism among other things. They have elders.

From this structure flows teaching on such subjects as "election, predestination and eschatology." Perhaps even those subjects are "milk" topics. We don't even have churches.

A milk issue to me is the veracity of the word. This forum equates the word to the same value as the sensitivities and the possible offense of a poster when the LORD elevates his word above his very name. We perhaps make those sensitivities even more important. Psalm 138:

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Other translations hold it to be the SAME as his name. In either case, that's rarefied territory as we are not to take the name of the LORD our God in vain.

Not for one second should the sensitivities of any poster be raised to a par of equal to God's word. If they stand against it, even in the smallest way, I am all for treating them respectfully, but it's possible to tell someone in a respectful way that they are flat out wrong. In fact, in the final analysis, it is in my humble opinion, far more respectful of that person to tell them that.

The example that I mentioned here, and that Oreslag is bringing back to the forefront as active debate is that when he was told scripture did not support his view and we as a group tried to be polite to him. I did not. I tried to be bluntly truthful with him. There is no provision in scripture for another race of human compatible mates with whom to have children. Eve is the mother of ALL LIVING. Such other races aren't Eve's children. End of story.

The point is NOT to try to revive the argument, but that we are in such an infantile place of development that we can't say to someone here that the position is a non starter for a "Biblical" believer and that we are a "Biblical" group. That's a "first day at the teat" position.

The idea that "the basic need of marriage is met by being married" is your own opinion. Where is this in scripture?"

Genesis 2:

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."

God makes ONE woman to meet the need.

This is often thrown in our face as "God did not make Adam and Eve and Stephanie and Zelda" as some sort of proof that God wished for us only to be monogamous. It is a distortion of the actual statement, which is a woman satisfies the basic need of marriage that man needs a "help meet" and "should (not) be alone." It is then proven by God's solution, as mentioned above. He makes only EVE. Problem solved.

Nothing says that if God had made a few other ribs into women that Adam couldn't have or shouldn't have take them, but he doesn't Nothing says that we shouldn't take another wife if they are available and we know there is clear evidence that God does NOT frown on the practice. It's just true that the need for marriage is basically met by being married.

If I were to seek an additional wife purely because I wanted more sex, would that be wrong or ok? Where is the line?"

Just because you wanted more sex? I'd counter with another verse thrown in our faces all the time, Proverbs 5:

Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love."

And yet another is Malachi 2. Isaiah 54 speaks to the idea of that wife not being obedient, and perhaps this is good cause. Paul admonishes us not to withhold one from the other, and this speaks of good cause.

I would never tread anywhere near the idea that another wife is wrong or less than best but the abstract desire for another wife is hard to swallow if you have a good marriage. Why do you want another? That's about as impersonal as you can get. Why devote years to the otherwise fruitless search for an additional wife simply so that you could have another? That borders on jealousy, greed and covetousness.

Having said that, I'm not going to stop anyone from even that pursuit, but I can imagine that as a pastor, if I had a member who constantly spoke for 6 years of getting another wife and despaired of getting one after spending almost a tenth of their life looking for her (more if he's 40 or more as a portion of his adult life), that their desire was poorly focused and it wasn't a topic for the pews and aisles of the church. That would be a nice way of saying "Get a LIFE (not ANOTHER WIFE)."

 

[FollowingHim]

The first "meaty" issue I think that needs to be addressed is fellowship. Scriptural fellowship is commanded and churches are set up to meet the needs of the local believing community. They provide courts for dispute resolution, welfare for the deserving aged, communion and baptism among other things. They have elders.

From this structure flows teaching on such subjects as "election, predestination and eschatology." Perhaps even those subjects are "milk" topics. We don't even have churches.

I too attend a local church, am on the leadership and preach there regularly.

Biblical Families is not a church, nor is it trying to stare a new polygynous denomination. We are a para-church organisation, working with Christians across all denominations to promote a more scriptural understanding of marriage in the wider Christian church. This is a narrow issue, as you recognise. The job of proclaiming the Gospel and discipling believers belongs to local churches. We support, rather than replace, the local church. Each believer should continue to meet with others regularly and in person, and discuss the full breadth of the Gospel.

Sadly not all people who believe as we do are welcome to fellowship with local believers. In that case, as a last resort, we can help put people in touch with like-minded believers in their area so they can start home groups and even plant new churches with God's help, so they can have this local fellowship - because we are no substitute for a local church.

We do not need to cover every issue (although we may touch on many), because people should be discussing these in their church.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I did not say this forum was a church, or should be. I do say those who are "Biblical" should be Christian (or perhaps Messianic). Christians are to be in a church. I doubt this is true for many of us. If this is not a church, something we agree on, it should at least be a gathering of those in a church, or desperately trying to find one.

That makes it a "meat" topic.

You can't "support" a "Biblical Family" without being entirely "Biblical."

As evidenced by the discussion of the "Left Foot of Fellowship" at times, it would seem that many are reluctant to discuss their real views as well.

I would say in a lot of cases, we need a church of our own. This forum certainly doesn't have to be one, though it should speak to the topic and encourage headship of Elders over other believers in a formal church setting.

 

[steve]

hugh,
you are not the first, nor will you be the last, who looks upon this board as a target rich environment from which to start a church.
i am sure that i speak for many of the others in saying that you are welcome to start a church and extend an invitation to one and all. just do not try to create this board in your own image, it was created some time ago in a different image and is doing what it was created to do. if its creator feels to take it further it will happen without outside pressure.

also, insulting us and our beliefs, or lack thereof, probably will not draw you a congregation.

best wishes,
steve

 

[cnystrom]

Great. Mine is Christian. How does the constant focus on plural marriage address the support of my marriage?

I have one wife of 29 years. I have found the study of plural marriage and the lessons that can be learned from the study of the successful practice of others have been very helpful to me even in my monogamous marriage. The same techniques that work to make plural marriage successful work wonders in monogamous marriage in my opinion.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

As a foundation? Absolutely, I agree Chris. My path to understanding plural marriage was trying to rationalize (honestly or dishonestly) what I had done in marrying my first wife. I had a crisis. Paul seemed to say one thing about marriage and divorce and Christ seemed to contradict him.

It was honest study (led of course by the source of all honesty which is not in me) that led me to understand that my view of marriage was flawed. Going back to the foundation and building from there led me to where I am now.

As part of an ongoing life though, as long as I stay married to whom I am legitimately married, and don't get married again, the constant discussion of plural marriage is pretty empty. Having argued the topic successfully with professors of Hebrew in the most respected and conservative seminaries on the face of the planet, I know my topic pretty well. It's still water to a fish and air to a bird though. How long do we discuss these things if we are one or the other? Isn't it better to simply fly or swim and breathe at the same time?

What is important about plural marriage from a practical religious/social/political standpoint is that it isolates us. You and I have sat down together. You know what I think constitutes a church. Most of the Christians/Messianics in this venue are in one or both of these categories:

• They are isolated to the point of being ostracized by churches.
  
  They wouldn't be a member of a legitimate church if they had the chance.

Since we are identified by our culturally unpopular view of marriage, we end up having only each other to form such bonds with in most cases. Being "Biblical" families doesn't allow us the luxury of sticking only to one topic. Once we say "Biblical" we've summoned the LORD and all he has said on all things into the room. He is a demanding God and we've most of us less years to go, than years we have already lived. Time to get on with it.

 

[steve]

You know what I think constitutes a church.

the statement about isolation is true, but your statement (above) is where the train leaves the tracks.

wrangling into unity on the matter is not going to happen on this board, in my opinion.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

You know what I think constitutes a church."

the statement about isolation is true, but your statement (above) is where the train leaves the tracks."

But in part, that is what this thread is about Steve. If you wish to discuss that, then I'm game. As the author of this thread's OP, I think I know the issues I was trying to address. Congratulations on engaging.

wrangling into unity on the matter is not going to happen on this board, in my opinion."

My honest assessment of your role in this discussion is that is PRECISELY what you wish to do. You then would (if the former is true) wish to pronounce it a "fight" (a "wrangle") and judge that the discussion should NOT occur, and essentially appeal to the owners of the board to shut it down, as a "wrangle" or a "fight."

I suggest that you prove me wrong, and actually engage further in the discussion.

I am an elder in a church. If you believe that churches can exist Steve, then I'm certain my little venue qualifies. I think we might differ on what is the minimum qualification for being a church.

In another thread, I quoted from Ezekiel 3 earlier today. I'll do it again to give you an idea of what I am doing here:

Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul."

While I do NOT think the issues are generally as large as the salvation of various members souls, I do think the issues revolve around obedience. Not all of Israel were unbelieving when they were punished by God, but their evil was there and in many ways it involved not toeing the line in issues that sprung FROM their belief.

We are told to gather ourselves together and not forsake that. We are told to have elders. We are told how to appoint them. This forms the basic outline of the church, that all of us SHOULD be in, if we can find one. For the record as I have said MANY times before, it certainly doesn't have to be mine. I strongly recommend the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as I think they have it MOSTLY right out of the available denominations in the United States. I can't (for instance) speak very knowledgeably about Australia.

As near as I can tell, I was definitely called to be the ruling/teaching elder of my church. When I see that calling, I am remiss if I play Jonah and run from it. It is better that I sin in trying to be that to which I was not called, than to believe I am called and to run from that supposed calling. God I trust will deal with me and discipline me if I am in error. Though it may be harsh, I welcome His reproof since it is for my good. If I am called, I am doing what I am supposed to do.

In quoting Ezekiel I reprove those who are not in church, that can be and most certainly should be. I would welcome them into mine, but I suggest they also investigate local possibilities first. I also to a lesser extent am challenging those in what they believe to be a church, to verify that it actually is a church. If it's not, the above suggestion to the unchurched applies to them as well.

I have an approach avoidance issue when it comes to my own church. I want it to grow, and quickly, so that I can retire quickly and early from my short stint as it's leader. To that end we have an interim goal of setting up 7 congregations from which a general assembly or synod can be formed, and then I can appeal to it to discard me as a leader. I fear it will be a longer and more fruitless effort in the span of my life. My preference was that a denomination and church be formed, but that someone else do it.

Only in a church can we properly address discipline issues.

Only in a church can we corporately address things like christian education, a very needful thing.

Only in a church can we properly worship to the fullest, as a group.

Only in a church can we experience fellowship at it's fullest.

 

[steve]

wrangling into unity on the matter is not going to happen on this board, in my opinion."

My honest assessment of your role in this discussion is that is PRECISELY what you wish to do. You then would (if the former is true) wish to pronounce it a "fight" (a "wrangle") and judge that the discussion should NOT occur, and essentially appeal to the owners of the board to shut it down, as a "wrangle" or a "fight."

I suggest that you prove me wrong, and actually engage further in the discussion.

actually, the words into unity were the key point of my statement. we will not wrangle into unity here, nor anywhere else.
if you and i each focus on Yeshua, at some point our views will converge. if one or both of us focus on what we believe and can prove in Scripture, our view points will never converge.