Good afternoon, Rusty.
Please forgive me in advance if this comes across as an attack. That is not my intention. It is, perhaps, though, my intention to
confront you -- but only because I see in you a brother who intends to be our Father's disciple. I am no expert. On the other hand, I can't escape the pattern I've been observing in recent months when I read what a number of men have been writing in some of the forums. In that sense, I'm not just writing to you; I'm writing to many other brothers on here -- and to any sisters who look at things through similar lenses.
Here's my experience. I find myself shouting in my mind, "You go, brother," to much of what you've been writing lately. The same is true when I read numerous comments about how destructive modern-day feminism has been to men, to women, to our culture, and to our children. I'm the opposite of a fan of feminism. However, at the very same time that I privately attaboying such comments, I also cringe, because I recognize that you (and others) are swinging way too far in the direction of axe-grinding and hyperbole. I don't assert this with the intention of criticizing you, making a point at your expense or doing battle with you. I do so because I
care about you. There are far too few of us who support, seek and actualize Biblical polygyny for any of us to cavalierly pick each other off for the sake of verbal one-upmanship. It is
only because I'm convinced that your verbal approach is self-destructive (and perhaps as a result potentially destructive of your family) that I'm opening my mouth about this. Some would say that I should keep my mouth
shut, but I have a deep recognition that the words we say to
ourselves are crucial, because what we tell ourselves and others has a tendency to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In a nutshell, some of your comments lately contain nuggets of truth, but those nuggets are being drowned in a sea of mistaken self-pity.
You're making the mistake of building and acting on philosophies that have at their core fallacious premises, some of which are loosely based on scriptural truths but are misinterpreted or taken out of context in a way that may sound good in a self-serving way but fail to take in the big picture.
Specifically, . . .
Even if she is choosing to legally “divorce” you (simply abolishing that government piece of paper / civil union contract), she is actually Biblically only “putting herself away” from you... and you REMAIN (Biblically/ in Gods eyes) her husband!... You therefore have headship over her still and remain her spiritual covering and authority! Pray against the enemy and the demonic darkness / unclean spirits that are influencing her and those around her!
This assertion contains a fallacy those of us who love Scripture are especially prone to falling prey to. The truth upon which we build such assertions is contained in the recognition that God doesn't want anyone to put asunder one's marital partner. Granted. However, God is not a Fundamentalist. We can only scratch the surface of what there is to be known about our Father, but we do know some things about Him and His Ways, and one of the things we know about Him is that He is multifaceted beyond our comprehension. Therefore, it is always a mistake to pin Him down to being one-minded about any particular issue. There is
always context. There is always nuance. There is always hierarchy of priorities.
As for context, we have to start out with paying laser-like attention to the contexts of each of the isolated instances in which God's Word mentions issues related to divorce and other relevant concerns. [As an aside, I highly recommend as a reference in this realm the book,
Divorce and Remarriage, by William Luck, a well-known supporter of Biblical polygamy.] It's crucial to be cautious about where one takes one's cues about marital dissolution when one attempts to apply Scripture to one's specific circumstances, especially because some scriptural dictates about separation and divorce are meant to address instances when the wife is in the wrong, while others are meant to address instances in which the husband is in the wrong. Furthermore, we put ourselves in perilous waters any time we simply
assume that every jot and tittle of Scripture applies to us no matter to whom it was addressed, when it was addressed, where it was addressed, how it was addressed or why it was addressed. To begin with, time context is far more important than some want to give it credit for. Some things never change, but some things do, and it is an egregious error to forget that our Father is sovereign and therefore is behind everything that does change. Which leads me to . . .
. . . the context of worldly government and regulation. Scripture makes clear that worldly governments only serve at the pleasure of our Lord, so it is entirely proper for us to assume, no matter how much we agree with what they're doing, that governmental rules and action occur because
He deems them appropriate. We may perceive that governments are working at cross-purposes to God, or we may perceive that God is faltering in His struggle with Satan, but if we fall prey to such fallacies we are only failing (a) to recognize that God directs the steps of
everyone, and (b) to remember that even Satan was purposefully created by our Father to conduct himself exactly as he does. How does this relate to what I'm saying? While we can find a Bible verse somewhere in the Torah that appears to indicate that we would somehow retain authority over a woman because she's supposedly still married to us in the eyes of God, in order to convince ourselves that this is the prevailing guideline we have to ignore (1) that it's not 1500 B.C., (2) that we are not God's chosen people wandering in the desert between Egypt and Palestine, (3) that we are not subject to the cultural norms of the Middle East of that time period, and (4) that God hasn't since then radically altered the governments to whom he has given administrative dominion over us. Simply put, we can delude ourselves all we want that we have some kind of control over a woman who leaves us, but the rules that are in place in Real Time (rules that God has permitted to exist) provide her with the freedom to put you aside with full finality.
May The Lord continue to guide and direct you brother! Im praying for your situation with a unique fever, as I’m currently going through a very similar situation/ struggle/ battle!
If you are truly going through a situation anything similar to E.D.'s, my serious encouragement is for you to rely less on assuming you have the authority of God behind you and more on taking 100% responsibility for providing the covering, provision and protection for your women -- even in the absence of being rewarded by their presence or anything that that presence might afford
you. I am
not suggesting that you entirely roll over, but what I
am suggesting is that, too often, we men have a tendency to fall back on expecting to be in charge and thus judging our women to be inadequately submissive when we have as of yet failed to demonstrate the type of true leadership that inspires followership.
Men that are in a position to, but are not actively taking more wives (which comes down to literally ONE thing, ...the first wife ALLOWING it) drive me absolutely insane
First of all, I challenge you to find Scripture that makes being a polygamist an imperative. I believe we can all find Scripture that supports men taking additional wives if they feel called to do so, but it's not something for everyone.
Secondly, while, hypothetically, there may have been a time 3000 years ago when a woman was expected to just put up with being dragged around by her hair anywhere and for whatever purpose by the man who was lucky enough to be the first one to uncover her nakedness, any such expectation hasn't been in existence for more than a millennium. I agree that men are generally equipped and exhorted to lead women, and I agree that feminism has distorted proper perceptions of reality, but I will also assert that you are only hurting yourself by continuing to believe in the existence of a reality in which you can ignore the fact that our women also have a say in matters of the heart and hearth. While we are admonished by Paul to lust for the approval of God instead of the approval of the world, that doesn't mean we can ignore the cultural context, not to mention the legal one. If you're being driven insane by this, you should look in the mirror, because that's where you'll find the person who is predominantly driving you insane. You are going crazy resisting what is real.
If any man expects to create an actual
godly plural family against the wishes of his first wife, he must be dedicated to maximizing his own personal suffering, not to mention the suffering of
everyone involved in such a plural family. And I have to admit the following, because I've had to confront it in the past in myself: if one can't manage to create a situation in which one can't prevent being at war with one's first wife in order to gain a second wife, why would one even wish upon oneself having
two wives? Isn't that an active request to be at war with two women? Or three? Or with however many? Because if one can't stay on top of one relationship, what makes one think one can stay on top of
more than one?
... cuz there is an absurd amount of available women out there that are extremely ready and willing and waiting to be courted as additional wives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lift up your eyes Patriarchs... the fields are ripe for the harvest ! A lot of sisters out there are dying spiritually and otherwise without a godly man to lead them!
I know for a fact this a strong reality!
There are many Naomi’s out there guys I’m telling ya!
Find them! Take them! Make the world a better place!
These women are so ready for a strong godly patriarch to take them as brides! They are SICK of grown teenage pagan boys using them as sex dolls!
[/QUOTE]
In the main, I think others have already expressed much of my reaction to your asserting all this:
So you say Mr rusty!!
I have yet to talk to a lady that is single and looking for a family that didn’t think polygyny was a disgusting form of adultery.
I agree. More than we realize are interested, but by personal experience, they just can't drop the dream of a Prince Charming all to themselves or the willingness to give up friends and family over it. If our culture was different, it wouldn't be that way.
But besides the wisdom of
@Mojo noting that if our culture were different it wouldn't be that way (because there's no more possibility of our culture all of a sudden not being that way than there is that the Chicago Cubs will start winning the World Series every year), I'm also struck by my impression that you are truly roiling inside, being beset by a sense that, if you don't quickly get yourself some other wives, you won't measure up as a full man. We do not
need to be patriarchs of plural families to have full worth in the eyes of our Lord. And, again, I'm not just addressing this to you. I say it to myself, and I'll say it to any other man who starts thinking that he simply
must increase his stable: we are children of God, and as such He already loves us beyond measure -- and not only loves us but approves of and is proud of us, to a degree beyond the love we have for our own children even though they misbehave and frequently miss the mark. Just because having a plural family is valid doesn't make it an assignment that can possibly cause us to fail in our Father's eyes.
And it is
always in play that, even if we
want to take on the responsibilities and joys of additional wives, we have to be
prepared to do so in a way that will minimize the possibility of failure. And that means getting our first house in order to demonstrate that we're ready to put together a second or third house.
The trick is, completely laying out your expectations and who you are as a man of God... fully and completely expressing up front (before things really go anywhere) how you function as a Patriarch and how you run your house... no negotiations!
And yes... I often wish to punch some of these men in the face.
... in love, in Christ of course!
There is something about having simultaneously contemplated these two quotes from you that sent up a red flag for me. I know you threw the green-faced emoji in there to indicate that you were, ahem, just kidding, but anger is oozing from a lot of what you've been writing lately. You're not only angry with your wife/wives and other women who don't accept your way of looking at the world, you're angry with any other men who don't join the philosophy of fully subjugating women. You criticize the women who run away from you when you inform them that it's your way or the highway, but you also criticize the men who aren't as committed as you are to making those women run for the exits. I'll be honest: my full-stop reaction to reading what you wrote above was to think, "You
are kidding me, aren't you!?
No negotiations?" Rusty, you're not looking for wives when you talk about no negotiations; you're not even looking for servants -- you're looking for
slaves.
The man who expects to engage in no negotiation is a man who wants to be excused from the difficulty of learning how to be a leader. My suspicion is that such a man doesn't even really want to rule with an iron thumb; it's just that he hasn't been willing to do the hard work of laying foundations necessary for proper structure in one's home: creating an atmosphere of safety and security; actively listening and paying attention; and articulating expectations, the consequences for behaving outside of those expectations, and consistent enforcement of those expectations. And the place where one really needs to start with that last one is ensuring that rules are followed by one's children and that one's wife enforces those rules in the same consistent manner. Getting on the same page about disciplining one's children goes a long way toward emphasizing the importance of being on the same page in general as man and wife.
I have had to learn these same lessons myself, because I have had to learn in recent years that having failed to establish proper respect for authority only created even
more work for me in first unraveling the chaos in my family before I could lay proper foundations. Probably most difficult in that process was admitting to myself that I was 100% responsible for the fact that no one in my family respected me, i.e., that even my wife encouraging our children to disrespect me was
my responsibility.
And I'm going to assert -- while getting ready to be accused of being a feminist pussy -- that any man who wants to be obeyed but doesn't want to develop true leadership is not a man who is called to lead a plural family. Authoritarianism is
not leadership. It doesn't work.
And it's not love.
We all have our moments when we look out into the world and find it wanting, but we will have no power to change that world until we look at ourselves and begin to address the monkeys on our own backs.
I pray you will devote yourself to wrestling with your own monkeys, because your world will only change when
you do that. We have no power to control the will of others.
At this moment in history, yes, we men are operating at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to being patriarchs. The postmodern feminist culture in which we have no choice but to sink or swim makes it even more difficult for us to lead our families than it was for people in Moses's day to do so. At least we can comfort ourselves with knowing that we don't have to lead hordes through the desert for 40 years, but whether we like it or not we are in a position to have to work even harder than Moses's cohorts when it comes to establishing our headship. That doesn't make it impossible, though, and I'm already finding that the rewards are sufficiently worth the effort.
Lastly, however, I want to come at this from a different angle. I believe there is a fundamental flaw in operating from a position in which a man
demands submission from any woman in his life, because believing that, in 21st Century America, you have the authority to demand anything like that is delusional. In point of fact, what you're actually and functionally doing when you
demand obedience is very basically empowering women to continue to dominate. It's a paradox but a valid observation, because, given that in the real world one doesn't have the
power to force submission, the act of submitting is entirely voluntary -- and therefore resisting the demand only further rewards a woman who knows that you can't legally make her do
anything.
I love you, brother, and I look forward to meeting you in person either at next month's national gathering in Oklahoma or at some other future retreat.
Keith
