Could a polygamous married man and his wives commit sin simply with church fellowship? My pastor agrees with biblical marriage whereas a man can marry more than one woman. He states that “In the rare societies where polygamy is rarely practiced one may justify oneself.” But then goes on and states that “America began as a Christian nation and in our society this would fall under let not your good be evil spoken of. The appearance of evil and in other passages” I replied, “Then we are in agreement with scripture, as far as it not being sin for a man to have more than one wife. But disagree in that it being sin in particular societies. I’m a little confused by the idea of it being sin in one place and not in another” As an American and a Christian, I believe polygamy couldn’t be a sin because of our religious liberty, although it could “appear” to be within church groups. In my opinion the “appearance of evil” in 1Thes.5:22, means to not even appear to do something that God has declared evil, not man. Then in Rm.14 where Paul says “let not then your good be evil spoken of”, also says to not judge one another in debatable areas, to live peacefully and edify one another. BUT Rm.14:20 says “…it is evil for that man who eateth with offence”, and in Rm.14:13, “…judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brothers way.”
-
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.
Church Fellowship a Sin?
- Thread starter Jim
- Start date
Jim said:
If a man is an alcoholic and sees you drinking, he may stumble into excessive drinking and waste his life. If a man sees you with two wives, he may stumble into having two wives and ........be an husband to them both? THAT is the difference. One stumble produces a life of waste and "sin", the other produces nothing sinful or bad.
It is one thing to debate about unclean meats and the freedom of eating or not eating for a believer. There was a rule against that kind of thing given in His Law. The same thing can be said about the other Romans passages about meat sacrificed to idols and whether or not it made someone feel bad with their own guilty conscience. There were some very legitimate reasons for NOT wanting to buy meat from heathen priests when that meat had already been dedicated to false gods.
But when we are talking about plurality in marriage, there has never been a law against it, nor anything even said in a negative light against it. It is the Almighty God that created it, owned it, blessed it and gave the laws for living it. So there is nothing that can be said about it even being a stumbling block.
I think it would be possible for multiple wives to be a stumbling block for someone if presented to the wrong person in the wrong way. This is the issue with the alcohol example too.Jim said:
Drinking in itself is not a sin, and it is something that is even recommended on the odd occasion in scripture (such as to Timothy). However drinking in front of an alcoholic would be tempting him to engage in something that he deeply desires but can not handle. That is why it would be a stumbling block - not because it is inherently wrong, but because that brother has difficulty with it.
Some men cannot handle women well. They may be abusive, or simply struggle to even maintain one - although they want them a lot (sexually for instance). I can see that if you decided to do a talk to a group of such men, swanned in with your 7 wives, and said "women are great, God says you can have as many as you like" - that would not be very sensible. You would be presenting them with an idea that they would deeply desire, but could not handle, and they could end up in an enormous mess if they attempted to do the same as you.
So I can see that in some situations plural wives could be a stumbling block for some individuals. But NOT for a whole society.
It would be ridiculous to avoid alcohol to avoid placing stumbling blocks in front of an entire society. There are simply individuals that you need to treat with greater caution here. Likewise, it would be ridiculous to say that you had to avoid plural marriage just because you lived in a particular society - rather there might just be some occasions when it would not be appropriate to show off or openly promote polygyny. That is taking care of the weaker brethren in our midst.
Romans 14:1 "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations"
Someone weak in the faith needs to be presented with the simple Gospel of Christ, and not distracted by controversial issues like polygyny that, even if correct, could potentially cause disputes that would turn them away from the fundamental truths they need to understand to receive eternal life.
So I see where he's coming from - but like you cannot agree with his application of it.
there are men that cannot even handle one wife, so to take this line of reasoning to its fullest extent none of us should marry even once.
it seems that the pastor is defining "sin" or "evil" with the extra-biblical desires of society. a society which accepted the "rights" of some of its members to go to another continent and enslave its inhabitants.
it seems that the pastor is defining "sin" or "evil" with the extra-biblical desires of society. a society which accepted the "rights" of some of its members to go to another continent and enslave its inhabitants.
Oreslag
Member
The pastor also seems to be ignoring the part of God's word whereby brothers also have a responsibility not to condemn (Romans 14:1-4): "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand."
Paul begins the 'stumbling block' sermon with the words above that clearly teach responsibilities on the part of both sides of a dispute between brothers regarding the righteousness of an issue. In particular, notice that a brother of weaker faith is commanded not to condemn just as a a brother of stronger faith is commanded not to disdain.
However, idol worship (as the orientation of one's heart) is clearly condemned in scripture, as is drunkenness (as a primary pursuit). Thus, Paul is comparing two issues that might result in legitimate debate because scripture itself condemns the typical outward manifestation of the inward tendency of the heart in both these cases. Whereas there is no condemnation of PM, the comparison of this situation to the others fails.
For example, in a debate between brothers one man could legitimately claim that eating meat sacrificed to idols is evidence of idol worship, while another man could legitimately claim (as Paul argues) that eating such meat in faith through Christ is evidence that he worships only the true and living God. But, in a debate between brothers there is nowhere to go in scripture condemning plural marriage. Thus, one brother will be without a scriptural basis for his claim.
Without a scriptural basis for his claim, such a brother is teaching a false doctrine. Turning to Deuteronomy 4:2, "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you", there is clear condemnation in scripture for teaching false doctrine. Consider now Leviticus 19:17: "Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt", and it becomes clear that this is not a situation of debate or stumbling blocks at all. Instead, this situation calls for exhortation to scripture and repentance of all claims that deviate from the truth expressed in scripture.
Paul begins the 'stumbling block' sermon with the words above that clearly teach responsibilities on the part of both sides of a dispute between brothers regarding the righteousness of an issue. In particular, notice that a brother of weaker faith is commanded not to condemn just as a a brother of stronger faith is commanded not to disdain.
However, idol worship (as the orientation of one's heart) is clearly condemned in scripture, as is drunkenness (as a primary pursuit). Thus, Paul is comparing two issues that might result in legitimate debate because scripture itself condemns the typical outward manifestation of the inward tendency of the heart in both these cases. Whereas there is no condemnation of PM, the comparison of this situation to the others fails.
For example, in a debate between brothers one man could legitimately claim that eating meat sacrificed to idols is evidence of idol worship, while another man could legitimately claim (as Paul argues) that eating such meat in faith through Christ is evidence that he worships only the true and living God. But, in a debate between brothers there is nowhere to go in scripture condemning plural marriage. Thus, one brother will be without a scriptural basis for his claim.
Without a scriptural basis for his claim, such a brother is teaching a false doctrine. Turning to Deuteronomy 4:2, "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you", there is clear condemnation in scripture for teaching false doctrine. Consider now Leviticus 19:17: "Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt", and it becomes clear that this is not a situation of debate or stumbling blocks at all. Instead, this situation calls for exhortation to scripture and repentance of all claims that deviate from the truth expressed in scripture.
Oreslag
Member
Your point is well taken and I agree that it is in ignorance that the majority likely cling to false doctrine. Indeed, this was my state for much of my life until our Lord convicted and quickened me.Cow fam said:
However, I'm also quite convinced from scripture that there are many false teachers and deceivers (even within the visible body of brothers) with malicious intent (e.g. Matthew 24, Mark 14, 2 Peter 2, 2 Thessalonians 2, etc.). Indeed, "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness"; which argues very strongly to the conclusion that not all such attacks come from brothers who are in Christ, despite what they may claim.
In any case, I just point this out to emphasize caution in assuming a 'brother' who denies the truth of scripture and seems to believe that scripture contradicts itself is actually a brother.
Oreslag, I completely agree with you that the whole point of this passage is acceptance. The big take-home message is that the church should ACCEPT those who have multiple wives - just as the polygynous men on this forum graciously accept those of us who as yet have only one! Thanks guys! :lol:
Mark, I'll try and explain my reasoning a bit more clearly by commenting on this point of Paul's:
If a man who can handle alcohol sees you drinking, he might join in, and have a relaxing evening with you. If a man who cannot handle alcohol sees you drinking, he may stumble into excessive drinking and waste his life. Alcohol can be either a pleasurable part of God's creation, or a negative, depending on the MAN. Nothing wrong with alcohol itself.
If a man who can handle women has polygyny suggested to him, he may "stumble into" having two wives and be a husband to them both. However if a man who cannot honorably handle women has even monogomy (let alone polygyny) suggested to him, he may hurt one or more women, or alternatively be himself led into sin by them (think Solomon or Ahab). Women for him are a stumbling block, polygyny only increases the number who get hurt. Women can be either a wonderful part of God's creation, or an inappropriate negative, depending on the MAN. As Steve pointed out, some men should not even have one wife. Nothing wrong with women themselves.
I choose not to drink alcohol due to the fact that a predisposition towards alcoholism runs in the family - I would not wish to cause either myself or a family member to stumble. On the other hand, God has blessed me with a wife whom He has given me the ability to lead, and maybe in the future He will bless me with more. Know your own limitations and those of others. There are men I would not encourage to marry at all (at least before making other changes in their lives), there are others I think would be able to care for several wives.
Turning up at church with multiple wives would not be a stumbling block for the congregation. It could be an encouragement to many people who could benefit from that lifestyle. And polygyny is inherently good, as God created it - just like monogamy. But for some individuals, those who would make a complete mess of it, I can concede that it could be a stumbling block, at least theoretically. There may therefore be individuals within the congregation to whom you would not suggest it to as an option for their own lives.
Mark, I'll try and explain my reasoning a bit more clearly by commenting on this point of Paul's:
God created alcohol, and also created women. Both are therefore fundamentally good. But both can also lead a man to evil.Paul not the apostle said:
If a man who can handle alcohol sees you drinking, he might join in, and have a relaxing evening with you. If a man who cannot handle alcohol sees you drinking, he may stumble into excessive drinking and waste his life. Alcohol can be either a pleasurable part of God's creation, or a negative, depending on the MAN. Nothing wrong with alcohol itself.
If a man who can handle women has polygyny suggested to him, he may "stumble into" having two wives and be a husband to them both. However if a man who cannot honorably handle women has even monogomy (let alone polygyny) suggested to him, he may hurt one or more women, or alternatively be himself led into sin by them (think Solomon or Ahab). Women for him are a stumbling block, polygyny only increases the number who get hurt. Women can be either a wonderful part of God's creation, or an inappropriate negative, depending on the MAN. As Steve pointed out, some men should not even have one wife. Nothing wrong with women themselves.
I choose not to drink alcohol due to the fact that a predisposition towards alcoholism runs in the family - I would not wish to cause either myself or a family member to stumble. On the other hand, God has blessed me with a wife whom He has given me the ability to lead, and maybe in the future He will bless me with more. Know your own limitations and those of others. There are men I would not encourage to marry at all (at least before making other changes in their lives), there are others I think would be able to care for several wives.
Turning up at church with multiple wives would not be a stumbling block for the congregation. It could be an encouragement to many people who could benefit from that lifestyle. And polygyny is inherently good, as God created it - just like monogamy. But for some individuals, those who would make a complete mess of it, I can concede that it could be a stumbling block, at least theoretically. There may therefore be individuals within the congregation to whom you would not suggest it to as an option for their own lives.
mark,
i champion your relationship with your wife and how it has worked out for you.
but please, lets encourage males to grow up and be men rather marry women that then have the job to raise the boys. that is why poly is such a good idea, it gives women the option to marry a proven entity rather than become part of an experiment of hope and possible change.
i champion your relationship with your wife and how it has worked out for you.
but please, lets encourage males to grow up and be men rather marry women that then have the job to raise the boys. that is why poly is such a good idea, it gives women the option to marry a proven entity rather than become part of an experiment of hope and possible change.
The more that i study Rm.14 it seems that it doesnt apply to marriage. But some believe that it can. What i get out of the chapter is that believers shouldnt judge one another in debatable areas. We can in good conscience agree to disagree. BUT, do not willfully offend thy brother with your liberty.RM.14:20 says that "...it is evil for that man who eateth with offence" It seems to say dont purp
osely offend another.
osely offend another.
Oreslag
Member
But we also need be careful not to take this too far. A brother also has a duty not to be offended. There are clearly two sides spoken of in Romans 14. From beginning to end, it speaks to both the weak brother and the strong brother thusly: "Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats." Indeed, it is in verse 13 where Paul brings both together and writes "Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." It is as much a stumbling block for a weak brother to 'Lord it over' his stronger brother by compelling him apart from scripture.Jim said:
Our Lord is not addressing only one side here, but rather both; and it is a grievous error to believe otherwise. It is an error for the stronger part of the body of Christ, through avoidance or failure to speak truth frankly, to yield to the weaker part of the body of Christ and prefer error over truth in the name of (false) love. Notice, for example, "For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil." Do not focus on the first two sentences to the exclusion of the last, for the last sentence provides the solution to the conundrum! Do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil.
Hence, if a brother is offended by what you do (and what you're doing is not evil) make this known to your brother. Be clear, frank, and speak from the words of our God. Exhort your brother to use the judgement of God presented in scripture, rather than his own judgement or that of prevailing cultural 'wisdom' (Christian or otherwise). Call your brother not to pass judgement, and be sure not to despise him should he fail to heed your exhortation.
Tell the Pastor it might be a sin to fellowship with people who are angry at the idea of hanging out with polygynists because polygyny might appear evil to other people.
http://bible.cc/proverbs/22-24.htm
Make no friendship with an angry man, and go not with a furious man;
Darby Bible Translation
Proverbs 22:24
http://bible.cc/proverbs/22-24.htm
Make no friendship with an angry man, and go not with a furious man;
Darby Bible Translation
Proverbs 22:24
Thankyou Oreslag, somehow I had entirely missed that, you are completely correct. Funny how you can read a passage multiple times and completely fail to pay attention to one critical sentence...Oreslag said:
DTT, brilliant response! I'll have to remember that one...
Jesus said, They who live Godly in Christ WILL suffer persecution.
He also said that they would throw you out of the synagogues.
That implied that you would continue synagogue involvement as long as possible, despite the controversial nature of your teaching.
Paul's example is interesting. Seems like every city he went into, he first went to the synagogue and taught what they did not know. When they threw him out, he simply taught everyone else. But interestingly, enough, it always seemed to end badly -- religious folk, often the synagogue crowd, had him beaten, stoned, imprisoned, starved, etc.
I am trying to imagine this. It seems like after a while, he'd get reluctant to go someplace new. "Oh, Boy! Here we go again...!" :roll: Yet he always did, and always spoke up / out, going to the synagogue first!
Seems like a good example to follow, while being spiritually prepared for similar results.
How will wives feel about this? Perhaps not too happy. That's understandable. They want, as per their God given natures, to nest and connect. Fortunately, we're not too likely to get drummed out of town. Just out of churches, while often picking up one or two true friends and believers in sola sriptura.
Maybe that's all good. And maybe happy poly homes, with loving and co-operative wives, would be more of a testimony than any speech we men could make.
He also said that they would throw you out of the synagogues.
That implied that you would continue synagogue involvement as long as possible, despite the controversial nature of your teaching.
Paul's example is interesting. Seems like every city he went into, he first went to the synagogue and taught what they did not know. When they threw him out, he simply taught everyone else. But interestingly, enough, it always seemed to end badly -- religious folk, often the synagogue crowd, had him beaten, stoned, imprisoned, starved, etc.
I am trying to imagine this. It seems like after a while, he'd get reluctant to go someplace new. "Oh, Boy! Here we go again...!" :roll: Yet he always did, and always spoke up / out, going to the synagogue first!
Seems like a good example to follow, while being spiritually prepared for similar results.
How will wives feel about this? Perhaps not too happy. That's understandable. They want, as per their God given natures, to nest and connect. Fortunately, we're not too likely to get drummed out of town. Just out of churches, while often picking up one or two true friends and believers in sola sriptura.
Maybe that's all good. And maybe happy poly homes, with loving and co-operative wives, would be more of a testimony than any speech we men could make.
“America began as a Christian nation and in our society this would fall under let not your good be evil spoken of. The appearance of evil and in other passages”
This was one of the first attempts at persuading us that polygyny was not going to be allowed in our church. There is truth to the idea that culture dictates some things as sin. Example: in the US church, my clothing would be considered modest, however, if I wore the exact same clothing in parts of central America, the Christians there would consider my clothing extremely immodest, and I would most definitely be a stumbling block. So, the culture can be a variable when considering whether something is sin.
However, these verses aren't applicable regarding polygyny, because polygyny is not an issue of personal holiness. The belief is either 100% right or 100% wrong. there isn't any middle ground, and the verses used by the pastor are seriously misapplied.
I think getting an actual acknowledgement that polygyny is sometimes acceptable is an amazing feat!
This was one of the first attempts at persuading us that polygyny was not going to be allowed in our church. There is truth to the idea that culture dictates some things as sin. Example: in the US church, my clothing would be considered modest, however, if I wore the exact same clothing in parts of central America, the Christians there would consider my clothing extremely immodest, and I would most definitely be a stumbling block. So, the culture can be a variable when considering whether something is sin.
However, these verses aren't applicable regarding polygyny, because polygyny is not an issue of personal holiness. The belief is either 100% right or 100% wrong. there isn't any middle ground, and the verses used by the pastor are seriously misapplied.
I think getting an actual acknowledgement that polygyny is sometimes acceptable is an amazing feat!