Has anyone else read this?
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-the-church-ready-to-respond-to-christian-polyamory
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-the-church-ready-to-respond-to-christian-polyamory
-
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.
Just read an article by TGC
- Thread starter Nikud
- Start date
This was my reply to the "dysfunction" argument. That guy had the nerve to say the OT only describes polygamy. True, it describes it and regulates it...never discourages it.
Still waiting....
"The "one flesh" Adam and Eve were monogamous. Their family was absent dysfunction...or maybe not. Isaac was monogamous. His sons were models of virtue...or maybe not. If Jacob wasn't polygamous, there would be no 12 tribes. Struggling to find where David was chastised for his polygyny. Didn't God tell him it would have been better to take another wife of his own, rather than Uriah's only wife? Biblical illiteracy is the problem, not polygyny."
Still waiting....
"The "one flesh" Adam and Eve were monogamous. Their family was absent dysfunction...or maybe not. Isaac was monogamous. His sons were models of virtue...or maybe not. If Jacob wasn't polygamous, there would be no 12 tribes. Struggling to find where David was chastised for his polygyny. Didn't God tell him it would have been better to take another wife of his own, rather than Uriah's only wife? Biblical illiteracy is the problem, not polygyny."
Maybe they're on to us?
Reasonable, biblical arguments against emotional pleas are frightening.
I thought I made some valid points about Hoseas promiscuous wife Gomer, Jezebel and Ahab, Herodias and Herod in response to Solomon's polygamy leading him astray and the argument of problems arising because of polygamy. The moderator must not like the way I stated them.
I posted again:
You took a lot of words to say, "I did not come to destroy the Law...."
I disagree that Jesus was implying anything in the Sermon. He did not include homosexuality, it's just not there. That's bad hermaneutics. But, the avoidance of it indeed proves nothing for advocates of sodomy. He didn't have to include it! His audience was Jewish. What self respecting, circumcised Jew would walk away saying, "Well, that rabbi didn't include homosexuality in his sermon...must be okay!" It was prohibited in the Torah, and Jesus wouldn't dare approve of it. I don't think there were many Jewish gay bars in Galillee.
But....
That also means he wouldn't have changed the Law regarding a man having more than one wife (concurrently). Jesus was consistent in his definition of adultery, as is all of scripture. Adultery is always defined by the status of the woman....never the man. Men, regardless of marital status, are not allowed to copulate with another man's wife...period (see David and Bathsheba). They can join any available (unmarried) woman to their family, thus permitting polygyny.
Don't believe it? Find a scripture where it is defined any other way. I will wait.
You took a lot of words to say, "I did not come to destroy the Law...."
I disagree that Jesus was implying anything in the Sermon. He did not include homosexuality, it's just not there. That's bad hermaneutics. But, the avoidance of it indeed proves nothing for advocates of sodomy. He didn't have to include it! His audience was Jewish. What self respecting, circumcised Jew would walk away saying, "Well, that rabbi didn't include homosexuality in his sermon...must be okay!" It was prohibited in the Torah, and Jesus wouldn't dare approve of it. I don't think there were many Jewish gay bars in Galillee.
But....
That also means he wouldn't have changed the Law regarding a man having more than one wife (concurrently). Jesus was consistent in his definition of adultery, as is all of scripture. Adultery is always defined by the status of the woman....never the man. Men, regardless of marital status, are not allowed to copulate with another man's wife...period (see David and Bathsheba). They can join any available (unmarried) woman to their family, thus permitting polygyny.
Don't believe it? Find a scripture where it is defined any other way. I will wait.
Sounds like you guys are on a roll
I think you guys might be making a big mistake here. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We're posting contrary comments even though the real thrust of the article is stuff we agree with.
Motley's aim is clearly to argue against the polyamory he's been hearing about. And the arguments he presents are generally valid for that purpose. But because he also conflates it with polygamy, even believing that the latter is a subset of the former, some of us have been going at him with the big rhetorical guns. Might be a bad idea!
He seems to have thrown in the references to polygamy just for good measure, and when I re-read the article with the word "polyamory" in its place, and overlook the bit about polygamy being a subset of polyamory, it seems his mention of "monogamous heterosexual marriage as sexuality’s only valid expression" is the only substantively anti-polygamy remark in the entire piece.
Yes, there's also the statement (quoted from a writer coming from a similar angle) that "there’s something to the one and one, that marriage is best kept as a covenant of two," but that's something many of us would say as well! If we differ from these writers only in our view of the number of such covenants a man may enter, maybe it'd be best to not treat this as something that deserves a blast of references to OT patriarchs and so on.
I think that instead of coming across as allies, solid folk who distance ourselves from polyamory, by taking this article as an attack we're embracing the misidentification as valid. Let's be above that. Let's not be so much in a hurry to be defensive! It doesn't show our position to be strong!
Motley apparently set out to refute polyamory but, mistaking polygamy for a subset of that, picked a fight he may not have intended. Granted, some of his arguments against polyamory are the same incorrect ones routinely leveled against polygamy, but some of what he says against polyamory deserves consideration and support.
Motley's aim is clearly to argue against the polyamory he's been hearing about. And the arguments he presents are generally valid for that purpose. But because he also conflates it with polygamy, even believing that the latter is a subset of the former, some of us have been going at him with the big rhetorical guns. Might be a bad idea!
He seems to have thrown in the references to polygamy just for good measure, and when I re-read the article with the word "polyamory" in its place, and overlook the bit about polygamy being a subset of polyamory, it seems his mention of "monogamous heterosexual marriage as sexuality’s only valid expression" is the only substantively anti-polygamy remark in the entire piece.
Yes, there's also the statement (quoted from a writer coming from a similar angle) that "there’s something to the one and one, that marriage is best kept as a covenant of two," but that's something many of us would say as well! If we differ from these writers only in our view of the number of such covenants a man may enter, maybe it'd be best to not treat this as something that deserves a blast of references to OT patriarchs and so on.
I think that instead of coming across as allies, solid folk who distance ourselves from polyamory, by taking this article as an attack we're embracing the misidentification as valid. Let's be above that. Let's not be so much in a hurry to be defensive! It doesn't show our position to be strong!
Motley apparently set out to refute polyamory but, mistaking polygamy for a subset of that, picked a fight he may not have intended. Granted, some of his arguments against polyamory are the same incorrect ones routinely leveled against polygamy, but some of what he says against polyamory deserves consideration and support.
Last edited:
The first post I attempted to make stated the difference between polyamory and polygyny then went on to state that I agree that polyamory is contrary to scripture. I think its the comments I made about there being little difference between twisting scripture to justify polyamory being accepted in some churches and mainstream church culture doing so to justify their doctrines which is why it didn't make it through moderation
@mystic: Well said, which is why I tried to encourage an argumentative dissociation between Polygyny specifically and Polyamory.
(I posted under my actual name [Matthew Shaw])
After all, I would agree that they should oppose Polyamory, and wanted them to realize that lumping it as a single unit with Polygyny might argumentatively bolster it, which is exactly the opposite of the intent of the writer.
(I posted under my actual name [Matthew Shaw])
After all, I would agree that they should oppose Polyamory, and wanted them to realize that lumping it as a single unit with Polygyny might argumentatively bolster it, which is exactly the opposite of the intent of the writer.
My first reply I posted here was a response to a comment, not the article specifically. That commenter brought up the "dysfunction" argument against polygyny. I merely refuted that.
The second reply was also to a comment, not the article. That poster tried to argue about Jesus knowing the Law and wouldn't advocate for homosexuality (more than that, but he was long winded). I essentially agreed with that point. I tried to show that he needed to be consistent. Polygamy is in the Law, and Jesus wasn't refuting that either.
You make a good point, though. I will try to go back on and clarify that we proponents of biblical polygamy are not advocates for free love polyamory. Good catch. Thanks.
The second reply was also to a comment, not the article. That poster tried to argue about Jesus knowing the Law and wouldn't advocate for homosexuality (more than that, but he was long winded). I essentially agreed with that point. I tried to show that he needed to be consistent. Polygamy is in the Law, and Jesus wasn't refuting that either.
You make a good point, though. I will try to go back on and clarify that we proponents of biblical polygamy are not advocates for free love polyamory. Good catch. Thanks.
I hope this is better. I hope they post it.
Dear Hmm,
Let me step back for a moment. I want to state that I actually agree with just about all of the article. I presume you do too. My comments above were not addressing the article. They were addressing a comment only. As a committed believer in Christ, I do not advocate for free love, promiscuous love, or any of the non-biblical aspects of polyamory (the ones all mentioned in this article). Scripture does not promote homosexuality, and neither did Jesus. I'm sure we agree.
But, as a committed believer in honest exegesis, I think it is irresponsible for students of the Bible to apply cultural norms to the practice of our faith. Monogamy only is a cultural concept, not a biblical concept.
We practice eisegesis when we filter biblical passages through our cultural lenses.
Modern, liberal Christians apply a modern cultural lense to scripture and advocate for adultery and homosexuality. The culture promotes it, and so do they. I disagree with this.
Modern, conservative Christians apply a cultural lense too, when it comes to marriage. They promote an older culture, but it's not a biblical one. Pagan, Roman culture advocated for monogamy only. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches absorbed that culture and suddenly monogamy became Christian, even if it wasn't necessarily biblical. I just want honest students of the Bible to be consistent, not cultural.
Even the scriptures you encouraged me to consult are not as black and white as you presume. Not every branch of Christianity agrees on the job prerequisites for leadership. Some branches say this verse means leaders must not have more than one wife to be considered. Yet, other branches say this verse means you cannot be a leader unless you are married (singles need not apply). Some branches disqualify divorced men, while others do not. The Roman church says only singles can apply. Regardless, neither this portion of scripture, nor any other says the men with more than one wife are sinners. Nowhere. Unless you apply cultural eisegesis.
"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." Which truth do you accept when it comes to the requirements of a leader? Be careful. Is it denominational, cultural, or biblical?
Dear Hmm,
Let me step back for a moment. I want to state that I actually agree with just about all of the article. I presume you do too. My comments above were not addressing the article. They were addressing a comment only. As a committed believer in Christ, I do not advocate for free love, promiscuous love, or any of the non-biblical aspects of polyamory (the ones all mentioned in this article). Scripture does not promote homosexuality, and neither did Jesus. I'm sure we agree.
But, as a committed believer in honest exegesis, I think it is irresponsible for students of the Bible to apply cultural norms to the practice of our faith. Monogamy only is a cultural concept, not a biblical concept.
We practice eisegesis when we filter biblical passages through our cultural lenses.
Modern, liberal Christians apply a modern cultural lense to scripture and advocate for adultery and homosexuality. The culture promotes it, and so do they. I disagree with this.
Modern, conservative Christians apply a cultural lense too, when it comes to marriage. They promote an older culture, but it's not a biblical one. Pagan, Roman culture advocated for monogamy only. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches absorbed that culture and suddenly monogamy became Christian, even if it wasn't necessarily biblical. I just want honest students of the Bible to be consistent, not cultural.
Even the scriptures you encouraged me to consult are not as black and white as you presume. Not every branch of Christianity agrees on the job prerequisites for leadership. Some branches say this verse means leaders must not have more than one wife to be considered. Yet, other branches say this verse means you cannot be a leader unless you are married (singles need not apply). Some branches disqualify divorced men, while others do not. The Roman church says only singles can apply. Regardless, neither this portion of scripture, nor any other says the men with more than one wife are sinners. Nowhere. Unless you apply cultural eisegesis.
"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." Which truth do you accept when it comes to the requirements of a leader? Be careful. Is it denominational, cultural, or biblical?
I posted again:
You took a lot of words to say, "I did not come to destroy the Law...."
I disagree that Jesus was implying anything in the Sermon. He did not include homosexuality, it's just not there. That's bad hermaneutics. But, the avoidance of it indeed proves nothing for advocates of sodomy. He didn't have to include it! His audience was Jewish. What self respecting, circumcised Jew would walk away saying, "Well, that rabbi didn't include homosexuality in his sermon...must be okay!" It was prohibited in the Torah, and Jesus wouldn't dare approve of it. I don't think there were many Jewish gay bars in Galillee.
But....
That also means he wouldn't have changed the Law regarding a man having more than one wife (concurrently). Jesus was consistent in his definition of adultery, as is all of scripture. Adultery is always defined by the status of the woman....never the man. Men, regardless of marital status, are not allowed to copulate with another man's wife...period (see David and Bathsheba). They can join any available (unmarried) woman to their family, thus permitting polygyny.
Don't believe it? Find a scripture where it is defined any other way. I will wait.
Ladies and gentlemen... I give you lord Mojo!
#micdrop
Another post. Feedback is appreciated. Thanks @mystic for the previous feedback. I hope it's getting better.
I apologize Peter. I wasn't singling you out in particular with my "biblical illiteracy comment. That was buckshot, and it hit you on accident. I wrote it quickly. My bad.
Here's the portion of scripture you requested:
2 Samuel 12:8New King James Version (NKJV)
"8 I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!"
It may not be promoting polygyny, but I don't see where it is calling it a lustful sin. This is not a single "proof" verse for polygyny, and I won't hang all my argument on it, but it seems like your view on this verse is commentary, not strict exegesis. The Almighty says he would have given David "much more!" Much more kingdoms....but not wives? If you want a commentary on lust it is there. Lust is desiring something that belongs to someone else like "thy neighbors ass or his ox". Scripture never says we cannot have more than one ass or ox, just not someone else's (property rights). Bathsheba belonged to Uriah, so yes, it was lust that got David in trouble. He desired another man's wife (possession). That's the sin of adultery, pure and simple. God, via Nathan, is telling David that if he wanted sex, he could have engaged with one of the other (many) wives that God...let me repeat...God gave him. If those were not satisfactory, God...let me repeat...God would have given him much more (not belonging to someone else already).
My brother Peter, I'm on your side on this article. I just think it is wrong and using poor hermaneutics to read a Western, 21st century, Roman church influenced interpretation into scripture. I was where you are now a few years ago. I just had to be honest and admit I had been fed commentary all my life, when I should have let scripture comment on scripture. Let God be true, and every man a liar.
I apologize Peter. I wasn't singling you out in particular with my "biblical illiteracy comment. That was buckshot, and it hit you on accident. I wrote it quickly. My bad.
Here's the portion of scripture you requested:
2 Samuel 12:8New King James Version (NKJV)
"8 I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!"
It may not be promoting polygyny, but I don't see where it is calling it a lustful sin. This is not a single "proof" verse for polygyny, and I won't hang all my argument on it, but it seems like your view on this verse is commentary, not strict exegesis. The Almighty says he would have given David "much more!" Much more kingdoms....but not wives? If you want a commentary on lust it is there. Lust is desiring something that belongs to someone else like "thy neighbors ass or his ox". Scripture never says we cannot have more than one ass or ox, just not someone else's (property rights). Bathsheba belonged to Uriah, so yes, it was lust that got David in trouble. He desired another man's wife (possession). That's the sin of adultery, pure and simple. God, via Nathan, is telling David that if he wanted sex, he could have engaged with one of the other (many) wives that God...let me repeat...God gave him. If those were not satisfactory, God...let me repeat...God would have given him much more (not belonging to someone else already).
My brother Peter, I'm on your side on this article. I just think it is wrong and using poor hermaneutics to read a Western, 21st century, Roman church influenced interpretation into scripture. I was where you are now a few years ago. I just had to be honest and admit I had been fed commentary all my life, when I should have let scripture comment on scripture. Let God be true, and every man a liar.
My first comment was to point out the polygamy and polyamory were very different, but I agree that there is a real danger that such comments will get lost in the noise and there will be a perception that we are advocating for both.
I liked Matthew Shaw's comment. Is he in our group?
I liked Matthew Shaw's comment. Is he in our group?