• 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.

Recent CMI article on polygamy

S

Shibboleth

Seasoned Member
Male
http://creation.com/bible-polygamy

I came across this recent (2 month old) article today on Creation Ministries International, and haven't seen it mentioned anywhere on this forum yet, so I thought I'd share. It's a response to a reader's arguments for polygamy not being sinful (and he references Shipley's book, which I have yet to read). For all I know, someone here may have written it.

Of course the response takes the anti-poly view, but it does admit that it's "not... as drastic a departure from the biblical ideal as same-sex marriage." It's mostly your bog-standard Genesis Ideal argument (which I believe is based on Platonic Idealism). Confronted with Levirate marriage, the response goes so far as to "agree that in some situations polygamy was morally permissible—but only under very particular circumstances, where a higher law took precedence." And in a response to one of the comments, he refers to a previous CMI article which establishes "that in cultures which practice polygyny, those are genuine marriages which should not be disolved once established."

What's interesting to me is the number of comments on the article (Comments are closed now, but were still open a few weeks ago). Many of them display the expected knee-jerk emotional reaction against it (My favorite such, because its so illustrative: "Or just think for a second about how you would feel if you had to share your wife with multiple men. Wouldn't a woman feel the same about sharing a husband? Would our loving God really think that's a good idea? Of course not!"). But I counted at least 4 commenters (including the original questioner) who make arguments in favor of it, two of whom do so repeatedly and strongly.

I think this is the closest I've seen to an actual public debate on the issue, on a well-known Christian site, that isn't just one side or the other making their case. Kudos to CMI for at least permitting and engaging in the conversation.
 
This very mainstream site opens up with this quote:
https://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

"The question of polygamy is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. "

It's a bold proclamation for the beginning to an answer.


They go on to explain how things "changed" o_O
 
Shibboleth said:
http://creation.com/bible-polygamy

I came across this recent (2 month old) article today on Creation Ministries International, and haven't seen it mentioned anywhere on this forum yet, so I thought I'd share. It's a response to a reader's arguments for polygamy not being sinful (and he references Shipley's book, which I have yet to read). For all I know, someone here may have written it.

Of course the response takes the anti-poly view, but it does admit that it's "not... as drastic a departure from the biblical ideal as same-sex marriage." It's mostly your bog-standard Genesis Ideal argument (which I believe is based on Platonic Idealism). Confronted with Levirate marriage, the response goes so far as to "agree that in some situations polygamy was morally permissible—but only under very particular circumstances, where a higher law took precedence." And in a response to one of the comments, he refers to a previous CMI article which establishes "that in cultures which practice polygyny, those are genuine marriages which should not be disolved once established."

What's interesting to me is the number of comments on the article (Comments are closed now, but were still open a few weeks ago). Many of them display the expected knee-jerk emotional reaction against it (My favorite such, because its so illustrative: "Or just think for a second about how you would feel if you had to share your wife with multiple men. Wouldn't a woman feel the same about sharing a husband? Would our loving God really think that's a good idea? Of course not!"). But I counted at least 4 commenters (including the original questioner) who make arguments in favor of it, two of whom do so repeatedly and strongly.

I think this is the closest I've seen to an actual public debate on the issue, on a well-known Christian site, that isn't just one side or the other making their case. Kudos to CMI for at least permitting and engaging in the conversation.
Click to expand...
Can't believe CMI allowed those weak and obviously flawed and conflicting answers to be posted by their guy. Pretty embarrasing.
 
Bookmark for later discussion: Some of us here at BF are pretty active on the ground but not so much on the forum; some active on the forum are not so present on the ground. One of the ways we could develop our internet presence would be to occasionally mount an active campaign on one of these other sites, where multiple BF posters (or even just one or two) could make an active project out of 'fighting the good fight' online, with support from other members here.

It's the cyber-equivalent to one or two of us reaching out to start fellowships or outreach ministries on the ground. Just a thought for another thread since the article referenced here is closed, but something to keep in mind....
 
@andrew That sounds like a great idea. We could coordinate efforts using a folder with different threads, each thread referring to different campaign sites.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
"The question of polygamy is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. "
Click to expand...
I've noticed that as a common theme in all of these supposedly open-minded apologetic Q&A's in regards to poly. First, they're more than willing to conceded that it was fine 'then'. Then they ask the question "why" it changed. That simply begs the question. Why's are always the easiest to answer. We're human, we can rationalize anything. Look at the post-modern left in the US for a prime example. There are why's for everything all over the place. You can't walk down the street without tripping on a why for some stupid thing. But ask "how" something changed and everyone shuts down with a blank stare*. They need to ask "how". Not even this one actually addresses "how". "How" did it change? They even stated at the end that maybe it really didn't change and so the "why" is that there's really no need for it today.

I believe most of us will agree that they (mainstream Churchians) cannot disassociate the lawful (biblical) from the legal (man-made). Bigamy is illegal and, as upright Christians, we really should follow the laws of the land and not obtain more than one government issued, permission to marry, license**.

* or, God help me, they'll start off with a "Well, i feel..." ARRGGG!. The facts don't care about your feelings. (I've been watching a lot of Ben Shapiro on YouTube lately. I like that guy.)

** I could say to not have one at all, but there are advantages and that's the purview of each fam's leader.
 
If hypothetically we were going to start a new forum for a 'response team' that would keep eyes out for opportunities to 'give an answer' on other websites, and could also respond to prompts from other BF members to check out particular discussions or comment threads, and would consider their work an active outreach—part evangelistic and part prophetic—ministry project, and would use the private forum as a place to plot strategy and coordinate tactics.... would anyone here be interested in being a part of that team?
 
The way I see it, the team would have a force projection component, taking our beliefs out in public and giving them broader exposure and accessibility, but would also have a 'culture watch' or intel gathering component, being able to report back here on the kinds of things people are saying on public sites that are not organized around a common belief in biblical marriages and families. Either side of that equation would be useful; together it's a very effective combination.
 
Talking with NetWatchR earlier today, there's a third angle to this:

(1) advocating for biblical marriage outside the BF echo chamber,
(2) gathering intel on what's happening with the Overton window re marriage out in the wider culture,
(3) keeping eyes peeled for possible allies.

If only practicing homosexuals had supported the rights of homosexuals back in the '60s and '70s, homosexuality might still be classified as a mental disorder (as it was until 1973), and 'gay marriage' would be unheard of. But homosexuals were able to make their case stick with lots of straight people, and that's what turned the tide. We could learn a thing or two from them. Where are the people who aren't plural that would support the rights of consenting adults? Where are the people who aren't even trying to live biblically, but would support our rights to religious freedom and association?
 
Oh snap... BF Team ASSEMBLE!!!!

I'll brush up on my apologetics and hermeneutics ... and you can count me in as much as I'm able! (I work a lot, but can still find time to bash some bad logic, falsehoods, and crummy interpretations!)
 
I'm interested, at least from an intel-gathering and strategizing perspective. I already have a couple of thoughts on that. Not sure I'm much of a force projection guy, though. I do like the military-op framing, though.



EDIT: Apparently, I can't fall asleep tonight until I get this off my chest:

andrew said:
But homosexuals were able to make their case stick with lots of straight people... Where are the people who aren't even trying to live biblically, but would support our rights to religious freedom and association?
Click to expand...
I hesitate to respond, because I have no conception of what pains those of you actively in this lifestyle go through daily, and I certainly don't mean to belittle that, or suggest that you shouldn't have those freedoms. But I do feel compelled to ask whether the acceptance of the world, as convenient as that would be, is the actual end goal. I think homosexuality caught on among straight people, in large part, because it directly appeals to mankind's rebellious "I can do whatever I want" nature. IMO, per Romans 1, it is a direct result of God turning His back on our culture, and giving it over to unclean lusts, because they have turned their back and rebelled against Him. While it's tempting to also paint PM families as cultural rebels, it seems to me that PM and BibFam is really all about a return to proper authority: both that of God's Word over the tradition of the Church, and that of the man over his family.

Determining purpose is important because it determines audience. We know that the world will hate us because it hated Him first. So instead of trying to court the world's favor, wouldn't it make more sense to think of this along the line of the Reformation? Consider if the target audience were Christian men and women, who might be woken up to what a Biblical family can look like. Apologies if I may have overstated my point a bit for emphasis. I don't know that worldly allies are necessarily a bad thing, but it seems very dangerous to me. Either someone is with Christ, or they are against Him.
 
Last edited:
@Shibboleth, I'm going to try a general response rather than line-by-line.

For the most part, I disagree with you, but my sense is that's probably a matter of perspective and framing that can be resolved, rather than any real conflict of interest.

We are engaged in an undeclared (aren't they all these days?...) war. They aren't called "social justice warriors" randomly or arbitrarily. Western civilization is being unbuilt brick by brick, and the pace of the unbuilding is accelerating.

War can make for some unlikely allies (anybody here watch Game of Thrones?...). The question is whether you can unite—even if only temporarily—against a common foe that threatens your existence or would rather squabble your way into oblivion.

What few freedoms we enjoy as believers are at risk. Conceptions of reality based on the basic biological and psychological differences of men and women have somehow become "up for debate" instead of "settled science". Worse than that, in the minds of those who would dismantle our reality, the UNdifference of men and women has become "settled". For them.

Biblical Families does not just represent "conventional churchianity + polygamy". It represents a fundamental paradigm shift with respect to the nature of men, women, and the male/female relationship that cuts across cultural religious identifications. Clearly, our first priority is an outreach to those who are looking for biblical guidance on these topics. However, there's more to the story than just "people who go to church or have some other reason to think they're Christians" and "unwashed heathens who don't acknowledge Christ as the Living Lord". Therefore there is more to this equation than just talking to other people who claim to be Christians and ignoring the rest.

The modern church is so out of line with the bible's teaching on men, women, and marriage that we are often rejected out of hand and sometimes persecuted by people who claim to be our brothers and sisters (except that they often conclude in the process that we are not their kin anyway, and we are the ones who are the 'unwashed heathens', or maybe 'reprobates' in this context...). Meanwhile, the modern church is so out of line with the gospel generally that many folk outside the "church", including particularly many men, think they have a problem with God when really their problem is with the "church"—with specific individuals that have treated them badly, or with things they have been told about 'what Christians believe', or with some of the dumb things some 'Christians' do in public.

So for me, the lines are not so clearly drawn as you would make them. I am comfortable within and without the churches testifying to what God has done in my life and why I live the way I do. I find it a more profitable use of my time to work outside the institutional framework, and leave most of the work within the churches to others. But I respect those who work the churches. If we call it a "Peter and Paul" thing, I identify with Paul, but see anyone who identifies with Peter as being on the same team.

So my suggestion is that if you feel particularly limited to working with other people who claim to be Christians, then you should clearly follow your conscience. But if others such as myself are comfortable outside that circle, then we should do what we're called to do, also. Working together as part of one team we can reach more individuals and harvest more fields, even if you're working in one field and I'm working in another.
 
And a quick hat tip to you, brother Shibboleth, for stirring up all this talk about reaching out to others with your original post in this thread!
 
On board...just after this week :D

I am comfortable working in either realm.
 
@andrew I think I agree with pretty much everything you wrote about the culture war, and BF being a fundamental paradigm shift, and men confusing the Church with God... There's some I might write when I have more time that would go off on political tangents, but you're probably right that a lot of this is a matter of perspective and framing. And most likely some misunderstanding on my part. I've been thinking a lot today about what that might be, and trying to interpret your approach. I don't have much time for a full response, so I'm going to use analogies to creationism, to try and explain the framework I thought I was hearing, and maybe pinpoint where the issue is.

(1) The initial vibe that I was getting, based on the comparison to homosexuals, is that you are looking for the equivalent of institutional/governmental support for legislating creation be taught in classrooms. For now, suffice to say that I'm very skeptical of this approach (possibly a topic for another thread). In a majority non-Christian society, this is likely to be viewed as tyrannical, and at any rate, it isn't likely to produce the desired result (e.g. unbelievers teaching other unbelievers creation isn't likely to yield much fruit).

(2) Abandoning the institutional/governmental approach, and just speaking to unbelieving individuals about PM or patriarchy seems like the equivalent of trying to convince someone of the truth of Intelligent Design, generically, without drawing them to God as the Designer. Non-creationist Intelligent Design people can have some fascinating arguments, and we might agree on a lot, but then they might think the Designer is Allah, or some alien culture, or some impersonal universal force. If we get them to believe in any old intelligent designer they're comfortable with, then we haven't done our job.

(3) After consideration of your latest post, I think you're actually talking about using this issue as a jumping off point for evangelization (I see now you mentioned that in your initial post and I glossed over it). This would be similar to talking with someone, and using nature as an opportunity to talk about the Creator. I can support that; it probably just didn't occur to me last night. If I ask myself why, I guess I'd been considering PM to be more of a mature "meat" topic than a newborn "milk" topic, if that makes sense? I.e. that before you could understand it properly, you had to start with a solid foundation of faith in God, and that created the world, that His Word is true, even if it offends our modern sensibilities, that He ordains authority structures and rules, etc... an eventually you build up to that point. But I'm willing to concede that this may not be the case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top