• 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.

Making Progress on the church acceptance front

Daniel DeLuca

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
Our church has a new worship pastor, and he is apparently pro-polygamy!!!!! We have an end-of-year banquet complete with Bar-B-Que, and the orchestra director told us that the worship leader said that we should bring our husbands, wives, girlfriends, or both. Of course it sounds like he was just kidding when he said that, but I can't help but wonder if he knows how much I have been going around the church telling people that polygamy is Biblical. Now all I have to do, is find a girlfriend! I told my wife about this when I got home from rehearsal. She didn't say anything about it. I'm still waiting for her to come around.
 
Just tell your wife you have a surprise for her and introduce her to your new wife. Avoid the whole girlfriend thing and save yourself the hassle. ;) :D
That’s a sure crowd-pleaser!:p
 
Just tell your wife you have a surprise for her and introduce her to your new wife. Avoid the whole girlfriend thing and save yourself the hassle. ;) :D
LOL!!! I think it would be highly unlikely for me to get a waiver from the state's anti-bigamy laws, out of the state of Texas AG office, if I were to go that route. I don't want my second wife to feel like any less of a wife than my current wife, especially given that she would have no guarantee of inheritance or family visitation or that sort of thing. Besides, I think I would have a lot of fun surprising the folks in my church, if I could get my wife and another woman to "play along with me".
 
Last edited:
Just tell your wife you have a surprise for her and introduce her to your new wife. Avoid the whole girlfriend thing and save yourself the hassle. ;) :D

Is that how you did it?
 
LOL!!! I think it would be highly unlikely for me to get a waiver from the state's anti-bigamy laws, out of the state of Texas AG office, if I were to go that route. I don't want my second wife to feel like any less of a wife than my current wife, especially given that she would have no guarantee of inheritance or family visitation or that sort of thing. Besides, I think I would have a lot of fun surprising the folks in my church, if I could get my wife and another woman to "play along with me".

You are free to write a Last Will and Testament with inheritance rights for your wives, children, and anyone you wish. Your marriages are a spiritual matter, not a civil one, as marriage is a divine institution created by God and not Government.

I am sure most here are familiar with this quote, but Luther states this case very well:

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

With regard to unjust laws that are anti-biblical, St. Augustine said...

"Lex iniusta non est lex (English: An unjust law is no law at all)"

Consider these quotes and perhaps the girlfriend who will "play along with" you will end up being the real deal. :)
 
Here’s another plug for an Irrevokable Trust. Just create sub trusts for each wife where you are listed as the First Trustee and they are listed as the Second Trustee respectively.

Disclaimer: Not to be construed or mistaken as legal advice. Do your own homework .:D

From what I’ve seen, Last Wills and Testaments are stopgaps at best and are only marginally better than nothing.

You could also list the other wife as the Third Trustee in case something happens to the First and Second Trustee of one trust. And if concerned about that, just have someone you trust implicitly as the succeeding First of both sub trusts.
 
Here’s another plug for an Irrevokable Trust. Just create sub trusts for each wife where you are listed as the First Trustee and they are listed as the Second Trustee respectively.

That's good for inheritance issues on death. But what about early dissolution of the relationship (i.e. she leaves)?
 
That's good for inheritance issues on death. But what about early dissolution of the relationship (i.e. she leaves)?
If you own nothing (because its all in the trust), and the children are the beneficiaries, she only benefits if she stays. If she departs, probably with the kids, the trust will still be intact, nothing or little to split asset wise because you can only split what you own, kids will still be cared for through the trust. Your job may be a bit more complicated as Trustee, but the beneficiaries assets are protected and they are still cared for.
 
The most difficult part of operating in an irrevocable trust is that you must give up everything in order to keep it for your beneficiaries. This seems to be counterintuitive in reality, even though we are super familiar with it in theory.

Who owns everything you have? Cue the 2nd grader in Sunday School raising his hand and answering. . . . . God!
Did he give it to you? Or did he entrust it to your stewardship?
If he entrusted it to you, who’s the beneficiary? (Hint: the answer is neither you nor your children). Everything he has entrusted to your care must be justified in some way as benefiting your grandchildren. Even if they’re not born yet. Your children are beneficiaries only to the extent that they are a necessary part of producing grandchildren. At some point they will become the stewards of the trust for their grandchildren and are directed to utilize the trust to produce and care for grandchildren.
 
If he entrusted it to you, who’s the beneficiary? (Hint: the answer is neither you nor your children). Everything he has entrusted to your care must be justified in some way as benefiting your grandchildren. Even if they’re not born yet. Your children are beneficiaries only to the extent that they are a necessary part of producing grandchildren. At some point they will become the stewards of the trust for their grandchildren and are directed to utilize the trust to produce and care for grandchildren.
Yes, yes, yes! Prov 13:22! Longitudinal/generational thinking FTW.
 
The most difficult part of operating in an irrevocable trust is that you must give up everything in order to keep it for your beneficiaries. This seems to be counterintuitive in reality, even though we are super familiar with it in theory.

I like that idea in theory although there are some complicating issues.

First, Trusts are not untouchable in the courts. It is possible for a person to get the court to replace the trustee (I'm presuming here that this trust has you as trustee and the children as benefitiaries). One of the ways to accomplish this is the demonstrate to the court that the trustee is violating his fiduciary responsibilities. And that presents a big problem because if you put all your assets into the trust, as they are supposed to be used for the benefit of the children, you yourself can't take benefit from it.

For example....say you put your house in the trust, and she leaves and gets custody of the children. Since they are supposed to be the beneficiaries, you're in the situation of having to leave the house (with your other wives and children) and allowing her and just her kids to live there. Now that particular situation *might* be able to be fixed by putting it in the trust and granting the trustee a life estate; but even there, that is an asset the court could touch in the split.

The same thing could be said for any other run of the mill asset you might put in a trust that is needed for day to day life or savings. Including retirement savings (which could be substantial).

How do you handle those things?

Although if you are wealthy enough to have larger sums of money you save just for passing down to kids/grandkids; then this is a good way to protect them and keep them from being blown by the ex-wife post-divorce on loose living. And for these sorts of trusts, making it a spendthrift trust is also a good idea.
 
Please note that I am specifically referring to a Private, Irrevocable Trust. This is a different animal than a Revocable Trust.

As First Trustee, there is a lot of authority and responsibility re how the trust is managed. A Second, Third or fourth trustee is appointed or removed as the First deems necessary.
An ex Trustee could attempt to take it into court, but with this particular Trust that would be very difficult for multiple reasons, standing and jurisdiction being two of them.

As to the house as a trust asset, even that does not have to house the children to be considered an asset benefitting them provided certain guidelines are being met as established in the trust documents.

As before, do your homework. I personally wouldn’t give two hoots for a Revocable Trust.
 
OK, back to the original topic of discussion...There are other reasons why I wouldn't want to surprise my wife with a new sister wife. We have already had the discussion on polygamy, and she has expressed her feelings, and she is dead set against it, at least from our last conversation about it. I believe it is the right thing to do, to remain only married to her, since we married under the premise of monogamy. If I do get a girlfriend, she will have to understand that until my wife comes around, we cannot be anything more than boyfriend/girlfriend. The "Law of Love" that we who are under the new covenant, are obliged to follow, dictates this. In addition, by marrying a woman without the legal sanction, we leave ourselves open to the charge by our fellow brothers and sisters, that we are engaging in fornication.

Having said all that, I have a further update on the progress I am making within the walls of my church. Yesterday, our pastor preached a message from I Samuel chapter 1. Well, you can guess how that message started out. It was the perfect opening for me to converse with fellow church members, including the aforementioned new worship pastor. You see, I am responsible for collecting all the orchestra folders left on the stands after the 11:00 service, and as I was bringing the last armful of folders back to the room where my wife was waiting to put them away, I had a chance to talk to him, about what the pastor had said in his message.

Here is a link to the live stream site for our church: https://www.hpbc.org/livestream scroll down to hear past sermons. You can either enjoy the children singing with the adult choir, or you can skip ahead to 31 minutes into the live stream to hear the beginning of the message or 35 minutes, where he starts talking about polygamy. At that point, he mentions that Elkanah had two wives, and then proceeds to say, "May I just say 'there are a few examples of men with more than one wife, in the Bible, but there's no good examples.' " He then paused and you hear laughter from the congregation, before he proceeds to ask, "How many of you men would say 'One wife is plenty, Amen'?" I was not among the chorus of those who said "Amen". The pastor then laughed and reiterated his false statement, saying, "there are no good examples of having more than one wife at a time in the Bible, and this situation is no exception." You can see my trombone sticking up behind him, as I always put my trombone away after the message is over.

Towards the end of the message, my little boy had to go to the bathroom, which is typical for a kid his age, and I needed to as well, so I took him downstairs. He finished before I did, and went back to his seat on his own Well, there was a couple sitting in the lounge area back there, as well as a gentleman, who identified himself as J.P. I spoke to them about what the pastor said, and said pointed out that Moses had three wives. J.P. agreed with me, and he revealed that he has studied this argument, and has reached the same conclusion the rest of us have reached. I told him about biblicalfamilies.org. He said that h is not interested in having more than one wife, but he agreed that the pastor got it wrong. The couple that was sitting back there, had two children, and they were very interested in what I had to say. They also agreed that there is nothing wrong with polygamy, although they asked about what Paul had to say, and it had something to do with deacons, to which, I responded that this was directed to Titus and Timothy, and it was about selecting people for specific offices within the church. I also explained that the literal words used by Paul, were "one woman man", and that most likely, Paul wanted them to select men who did not frequent the temple shrine prostitutes. They nodded in agreement. I had to get back to my seat, but I felt pretty good about that exchange.

As I was making my way to the platform, I talked to someone I have gotten to know, as he and his lovely daughter are in the choir. I told him that the pastor was wrong, and proceeded to mention Moses and King Joash. That exchange did not go so well. He asked me if I wanted to start a compound and how many wives I had, a question which he should know the answer to. I proceeded to talk to the folks in the rhythm section (guitarist/drummer) and to the organist, who had just completed playing the closing tune, and they were interested and had no such objections, so one objection out of four or five, is not bad.

It was when I spoke with the new worship leader though, that I got the most push back. He inquired why I made such a fuss about it. It seems that speaking the truth on matters such as this, is not so important to him. We had a somewhat lengthy conversation, and I admit, I was being dodgy when he got personal on me, but I told him I didn't have time to explain it to him right then and there, because it would take too long for me to explain it to him, and that I had to put my trombone away, and so I arranged to meet with him for lunch. I told him that I would email him to set something up.

APB for anyone living in the Austin, Texas area (Chris, Lauren), or who might happen to be trucking through town. I intend to set something up around lunch time, at a restaurant near Parmer and I-35, as that is a halfway point between where I work, and the church. I will provide further details, once the plans are in place.

We agreed that this is a "tertiary issue", and it is not on the level of essentials of the faith, and I told him that we in the "Christian Polygamy movement", already understand that this is indeed the case, but there are concerns over the fact that they don't have a place to worship, as they find themselves expelled from many churches.

In our conversation, I asked him why he thought polygamy was wrong, and he said that it is adultery. I pointed out that he was using an English understanding of adultery, and pointed out how Scripture defines adultery. He said that it is promiscuity. Interestingly enough, I don't recall seeing the word "promiscuity" ever mentioned in the Scriptures. I told him that the charge of Promiscuity, is not true, as the only people a man is having sexual relations with, are his own wives. He said that it was a bad witness, to which I disagreed, saying that here in Austin, it is not really a bad witness. On further reflection, I should have pointed out, that claiming that polygamy is condemned in the Bible, when it is not, is dishonest, and that is a much worse witness, as the atheists already know that Scripture does not condemn polygamy. I'll be sure to mention that in our lunch meeting.

He said that I need to understand the Hebrew and the Greek, and I told him that I had already looked at this, and that I have studied this issue for the past two and a half years. The interesting thing about this, is that my wife overheard me talking with him, and this is the first time I have had this conversation where she joined in, and actually supported me in a dialog, and she did not express least bit of disappointment with me, for discussing this topic!

The worship pastor tried to pass off Pastor Bowman's remarks as if it was just a joke. He said that the pastor went on to make a joke about Peninah's name. Well, when you watch the video, instead of reiterating that Peninah means sandwich, as he had reiterated his false statement about polygamy, he quickly backtracks, saying "No, No No" a couple of times. I told the worship pastor that my concern, was that pastor Bowman did not intend his remarks about polygamy, to be understood as untrue, at all, and I told him I would watch the message online. Having done so, I can see that the pastor made two false statements, unless you consider 40 people to be "few", or even 16,000 virgins who were given to 12,000 fighting men, to be "few", or even fail to consider the math of the ratio of males to firstborn sons, numbered in Numbers 1 and 4.

Ordinarily, I would respond directly to the pastor when he makes such false statements, but this time, I will just work with the new worship leader. This man has a HUGE circle of influence. He knows worship leaders around the country, and I am talking about big names like Bradley Knight, and Roger Breland. This is big. This is really, really big. I am excited! I am VERY excited! This is HUGE!
 
Last edited:
I never really care for the way this statement is often said; clearly a lot of them aren't pleased with their first wife and don't want to have to handle a second one.
I love how you put that! I was searching for words to express how I felt about that, and I couldn't have put it any better myself.
 
Well, progress appears to have hit a bit of a brick wall. I have been asked to step down from a leadership position within the church. Fortunately, they are not kicking me out of the orchestra. There is a position within the children's ministry that I somewhat reluctantly accepted at the beginning of this year, and I have faithfully served, facilitating taking young boys from one room to the next, and helping out with awards, snacks, going through RA materials, and various other tasks. I sent an email to the pastor correcting his misstatements made in the sermon on Sunday, and instead of him responding directly to what I sent him, he passed it on to the discipleship minister. We had an interesting exchange. He wanted a phone call or the opportunity to meet with me in person, but the conclusion of that exchange is that I have been asked to step down from that position immediately. My wife will still be allowed to serve in that ministry, but I suspect that since this Sunday will be the last one of the year, in the fall, we will probably end up finding a church that has an AWANA program, and volunteer at that church. We were both unhappy with our church's decision to combine all the children's programs into one weekly event, which pretty much squeezed out AWANAs, as our little boy was doing great with AWANAs, and didn't have the opportunity to go through the third book for SPARKS.

The only issue if we do go that route, will be whether he gets an opportunity to audition for solos in children's choir, because if we are not a part of the combined children's program at our church, that is where he would be getting that opportunity, and he auditioned twice for a solo, and was not selected either time. If he wishes to be involved in a children's choir, and we are in another church's AWANA program, he will only get that opportunity in that church's children's choir, which means that when the children perform, that will be the church we will have to attend on those Sundays, and if that goes well, we might end up transferring our membership, which we really don't want to do, and again, I cannot sit silent in the face of a sermon where misstatements such as the one our pastor made, are uttered from the pulpit, which will ultimately get me removed from the leadership position in that church.

So it has been made clear to me that anyone who openly espouses the positions that I hold, cannot serve in leadership. In my dialogue with the Minister of Discipleship, I made it clear that I don't expect anyone who holds my views to do so openly. The church has resorted to the logical Fallacy known as "Argument by Force". I don't mind being a sacrificial lamb, especially when the only recourse they have taken, is to remove me from a position of leadership that I reluctantly accepted. At some point, I will let people know what led the church to this decision. As long as I am allowed to stick around, I will work to change hearts and minds of people that disagree with me, including the pastoral staff. The worship leader asked if we could schedule our lunch meeting for next week, which led me to go ahead and email the pastor my objection to what he said. It was a judgment call, and I think the end result is the best possible scenario I can imagine coming out of this. I love kids, and I really enjoy working with them. They all look up to me, and I have gotten to know so many of them by name. I know that I will pass them and their parents, in the hallways. I am friends with so many of the kids' parents, so I expect that I will have a few one on one conversations with them, which I intend to discuss with them over lunch.

As much as I tried, I was unable to get the minister of Discipleship to agree to debate the issue of polygamy. Now I wish to press another angle, namely the dimorphism found in Scripture as it relates to instructions for men and women, when it comes to Divorce and Remarriage. He has not responded to that request yet, but when I see him in the hallway, I intend to bring it up as much as possible.

Lord willing, and with the help of the army I am recruiting within the walls of the church, I hope to break down that brick wall. Of course the real wall, is the wall behind the brick wall that I currently face, and that is the megawall known as the Southern Baptist Convention. That is a task I will be unable to take on myself, as long as I am not a delegate to the Convention. I hope to recruit that gentleman I met in the foyer on Sunday, who agrees with me on the issue of polygamy, to see if he is able to do so. If he can, the one issue I want him to introduce, is this matter of requiring polygamous families that enter the church, to divorce all but one of their wives. If and when that happens, there will be a mainline denomination that accepts plural marriage, but I would suggest plural family wanting to come to a Southern Baptist Church, that they dress and act as if they are Mormons, at least until they can get integrated into the church. I know that if my wife comes around on this issue by that time, I will start wearing white shirts and black slacks, and ask my wives to attend wearing long flowing dresses. We will play the part of a potential convert, until the point where the people will have had time to observe and see that we are living righteous lives in front of them. I will have lunch with whomever I encounter. Lord willing that is the plan, but I give Him complete freedom to alter that plan as He sees fit.
 
So it has been made clear to me that anyone who openly espouses the positions that I hold, cannot serve in leadership.

What I find interesting about this whole thing is we finally found something the modern church will take a stand on. They generally seem willing to overlook just about anything for fear of offending or driving away someone. Almost nothing seems sacred enough to compromise on. But on this issue, they take a hard line.
 
What I find interesting about this whole thing is we finally found something the modern church will take a stand on. They generally seem willing to overlook just about anything for fear of offending or driving away someone. Almost nothing seems sacred enough to compromise on. But on this issue, they take a hard line.
It's true, although the church I came from in Dallas, was quite vocal on the issues of abortion and homosexuality. If I could have found a better church in the Austin, TX metro area, I would have joined it, because I did an extensive amount of research on the churches around here, before settling on this one. Now I do know that my church does take a quiet stand on these issues, because they have hosted symposiums on bathroom related issues and other issues, and they sit in the seat of Satan, much like the church of Sardis, because when they hosted that symposium, the neighborhood gathered in full force to protest the church, and the workers in the church have feared for their own safety. However, I knew that this church would not be vocal about these issues after my first visit to the church, because the pastor preached a sermon that week, and two events had occurred, one right in the city of Austin, at the state capitol, not too far from the church, and those events would have tied in neatly with the pastor's message, and I was alarmed that he said nothing about them. That was the week that Wendy Davis had staged a protest over the proposed anti-abortion law, that missed the deadline to get signed into law, and also that week, the SCOTUS had struck down DOMA.

I love my church, even with the flaws that exist in this church. I met two people in my Bible Study "Grow group", who were former homosexuals, who were able to find spouses of the opposite gender and raise families of their own. I love the people of my church. I would love to see them be a bit more vocal on the issues of our day. I have emailed the pastor, asking him if our church will ever put crosses out on Sanctity of Life Sunday, and he wasn't even aware of what I was talking about. I guess that one thing that I can always hope will come out of this, is that our pastor will take what I have said to heart, and at least take more of a stand on these two moral issues.

Having said that, there is a lot to be celebrated, with what has been going on in Alabama and Missouri, Pat Robertson notwithstanding. The struggle to overturn Roe vs. Wade has taken over 45 years, but it has been well worth it. I have seen people make the claim that the Republican Party has done nothing to accomplish that feat, but I dare to disagree with them. These actions will undoubtedly result in this case being reheard in the Supreme Court, and with the current makeup, my prayer is that God will guide these justices to make the right decision. There is still much to be done, even after overturning Roe vs. Wade, but cannot be done with that impediment standing in the way.

I also hope to influence my state Rep and Senator to amend the law against bigamy to make allowances when there is confirmed consent. I know that a Democrat, Talarico beat out the Republican in District 52, where I reside. I feel dirty about appealing to him for this amendment, so I am torn over doing this. I met his opponent personally, but it did not occur to me to ask her if she would be willing to propose that change. I would feel much better about asking a Republican to make this change as a protest to the Ogerfeld Decision, even though I suspect that Talarico would be more willing to go along with this idea. Anyhow, I seem to have drifted away from the topic of conversation, although I welcome feedback on this topic.
 
Back
Top