Oneness

[Mbhs]

My husband and I have been studying the subject for the past 9 months. Its been incredibly shocking, hard and painful for me. However, I love the truth and God's word and cannot help but see that it is a God approved marriage.
We've been married for over 13 years, and have always had an amazing marriage. We have weathered some pretty intense storms together, almost all external and not specific marriage issues. My husband has always been an amazing godly husband (thought wow, this subject has made him step up in a way he never has before. For that I'm thankful).
However, this subject has rocked me to my core. The idea of him loving another woman has been devastating to me. Over time, it feels less so as we've had many, many very long conversations. He hasn't nor is he pushing me into anything. Yet...from day one of this conversation the fear that he now has the freedom to look elsewhere is very hard for me.
It has been sanctifying for me. Deeply. I've realized my idolatry of myself. Yes, the idea makes me jealous for my husband. But I guess it's a jealousy of all of his affection. I want him to be so in love with me, he would never look or think to look elsewhere, I want him to find all his satisfaction in me alone, all his desire, love, etc. And I've been convicted that what I am actually desiring is what is meant for Christ alone. In this way, I'm thankful for this journey. In my head I see myself as a unfinished statue being chipped away by the Master. And it hurts. But I know He is good. And I know I am satisfied fully when I live my life in full submission the Him.

My two biggest struggles right now are a) intimacy. Sex yes, but really, the idea of my husband loving another woman the way he does me is horrifying. Not sure I'll ever get past that.
2) oneness.
When we have talked about what this would look like practically in our lives, I cannot get around the fact that I, as the first wife would lose my oneness with my husband. Our relationship is one of completely open communication. We love talk and discuss everything. We text on and off throughout the day. We share things we're reading about, learning about, relationships with others, children, etc... everything. For another woman to be in the picture would mean I would lose at least some of that. In a Picture perfect scenario, me and the other wife would be best friends and all three of us would love to talk and spend all this time together etc. But EVEN then. On the evenings he is with her, I don't get to be involved in his life, nor him mine. We don't get to wake up together and hug, talk about the start of our day, be with our children together.
When we talk about this, he agrees. I would be the loser in the situation because of this. Since marriage is the union of a man and a woman, the joining of two flesh, two souls, it is very hard for me to understand how this could be good....or let's say God's will. Of course, right now I do not believe it is Gods will for us. However, since I now believe it is biblical, if I am to be obedient to Christ, I must be as open to it as I am to becoming a missionary to China.

We've spent a decent amount of time reading on these forums. It makes me feel a little better to see other believers who believe this. I actually talked to a friend and my mom about it yesterday. It was good because I quickly saw they did not have solid biblical reasoning against it, just like I didn't.
I have not seen this aspect of oneness discussed and am curious what others think. It is simply something the wife would be called to sacrifice? I do see the benefits, and perhaps a wife has to see those so much so she is willing to sacrifice her complete oneness with her husband.

 

[RainyLondonFog]

Hi there Mbhs, thank you for reaching out and asking questions. I'm going to preface this with saying; I'm currently the only wife with my husband right now. I don't know if that matters or if you want the advice of someone living in a poly relationship but I thought I'd reply.

You sound like you are on a good path. You see it as biblical, unsure of if it's His will for you, but willing to explore what that looks like in case it is. That's like the best thing I think in God's eyes - a willing heart. I struggle with that a lot of days, not even gonna lie to kick it. Anyway, you have concerns and can't see how it will in certain aspects. Mostly in intimacy and being "one" with your husband. You said this :

I would be the loser in the situation because of this.

And man, my heart aches for you and all who have to be in this place. I feel it. But, it's all in the way you look at it. Is it being the loser? Or more like what Jesus was trying to convey about the greatest in heaven is the servant of all? Are you missing out or are you getting to experience all the fruits of the spirit, even the bitter ones like long-suffering? And are you the only one taking loses or does Christ see something so beautiful in you He desires to expand your ability to love? And boy, does love have to put up with a lot.. So much of who we are is what we think and if we think we're victims we'll all be stuck acting like victims, unable to grow...

As for the sex and "oneness" I would encourage you to not stress about it now. It may never happen. Or it may and might look like something completely different than you are imagining. Try to just remind yourself that if it happens it's because it's His will and His will is best. The details will work themselves out. <3

 

[frederick]

I have not seen this aspect of oneness discussed and am curious what others think. It is simply something the wife would be called to sacrifice? I do see the benefits, and perhaps a wife has to see those so much so she is willing to sacrifice her complete oneness with her husband.

Thank you very much for your post and I truly appreciate all you have shared.

When considering the oneness of the marital relationship, when a man takes another wife there is no indication in the Bible that this should/would negatively impact on the sexual or social unity of a previous relationship. Actually the marital relationship ought to demonstrate the relationship between Christ and His assembly/church (c.f. Eph. 5:22-32). And oneness/unity ought to be demonstrated amongst those who genuinely believe in Jesus Christ. Jesus prayed, “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me" (John 17:20-21).

In answer to your comment above, as far as I can discern biblically there isn't a requirement to sacrifice any oneness or unity with your husband or any other believer in Jesus Christ (including another wife or wives) but demonstrate oneness in your relationship so that it reflects the Godhead, and the relationship between Christ and His assembly/church. How that will work out practically is something you will need to sort out with your own husband.

Shalom and thanks again.

 

[Mbhs]

@frederick thanks for your reply.

I think that is just my point. If marriage is a picture of Christ, to be one, and we have that in a profound way now, for another person to be in the picture...it seems impossible for the oneness he and I have to not be diminished. Perhaps in a marriage that isn't as established it'd be easier.

 

[steve]

Sharing a husband will automatically mean that the first wife will have somewhat less of his time, attention, and etc.
If that is part of her definition of oneness, then yes, it will be reduced. Just as her attention and time is reduced for her first child when she has another.

But is oneness a zero sum game in the end? If it is shared, is it automatically reduced from the amount of the whole? I would say that if the focus is on what one may lose, it will become self fulfilling.
Focus on sharing and let Yah work out the details. The Word talks about the three-fold cord which is much stronger and better than a double cord. Few there be that have created one, most are simply three separate strands attempting to stay parallel.

 

[Keith Martin]

Welcome!

 

[frederick]

@frederick thanks for your reply.

I think that is just my point. If marriage is a picture of Christ, to be one, and we have that in a profound way now, for another person to be in the picture...it seems impossible for the oneness he and I have to not be diminished. Perhaps in a marriage that isn't as established it'd be easier.

Perhaps as you view your situation like the church being made up of many members, united with the various gifts, all working together in unity, it will help you to see it a little differently. Read e.g. 1 Corinthians 12. @steve above likens it to parents being able to have more than one child yet love each child completely. It's a great analogy. Blessings

 

[Mbhs]

Hi there Mbhs, thank you for reaching out and asking questions. I'm going to preface this with saying; I'm currently the only wife with my husband right now. I don't know if that matters or if you want the advice of someone living in a poly relationship but I thought I'd reply.

You sound like you are on a good path. You see it as biblical, unsure of if it's His will for you, but willing to explore what that looks like in case it is. That's like the best thing I think in God's eyes - a willing heart. I struggle with that a lot of days, not even gonna lie to kick it. Anyway, you have concerns and can't see how it will in certain aspects. Mostly in intimacy and being "one" with your husband. You said this :


And man, my heart aches for you and all who have to be in this place. I feel it. But, it's all in the way you look at it. Is it being the loser? Or more like what Jesus was trying to convey about the greatest in heaven is the servant of all? Are you missing out or are you getting to experience all the fruits of the spirit, even the bitter ones like long-suffering? And are you the only one taking loses or does Christ see something so beautiful in you He desires to expand your ability to love? And boy, does love have to put up with a lot.. So much of who we are is what we think and if we think we're victims we'll all be stuck acting like victims, unable to grow...

As for the sex and "oneness" I would encourage you to not stress about it now. It may never happen. Or it may and might look like something completely different than you are imagining. Try to just remind yourself that if it happens it's because it's His will and His will is best. The details will work themselves out. <3

I appreciate your heartfelt response. I do think I let myself think about so many details of "what if" when the chance of all of those happening are unlikely or at least not in the near future.

 

[RainyLondonFog]

I appreciate your heartfelt response. I do think I let myself think about so many details of "what if" when the chance of all of those happening are unlikely or at least not in the near future.

You're welcome! It can be a good tool to think of details just so you can get used to certain scenarios, or process how you may react, but only if it doesn't make you crazy. Like you said so many imagined details are probably not actually how it's going to go down if it does at all.

 

[rockfox]

If you get past this...

My two biggest struggles right now are a) intimacy. Sex yes, but really, the idea of my husband loving another woman the way he does me is horrifying. Not sure I'll ever get past that.

then this...

On the evenings he is with her, I don't get to be involved in his life, nor him mine. We don't get to wake up together and hug, talk about the start of our day, be with our children together.

need not be a problem. Just get a bigger bed.

 

[Mbhs]

If you get past this...



then this...



need not be a problem. Just get a bigger bed.

Is this realistic? Do people really do that? Or is this just a fantasy?

 

[FollowingHim]

It is not normal. But it is practised by some. Each to their own.

 

[Keith Martin]

Is this realistic? Do people really do that? Or is this just a fantasy?

I've known many people in my life who have successfully done this.

If you want normal, then stick with monogamy.

And vanilla ice cream.

And average intelligence.

And divorce.

And lack of discipline for your children.

And, for many people, abject loneliness -- even in marriage.

These are all, unfortunately, about as normal as normal can get.

There is always what most people do, and even in groups of people fellowshipping about something that is far from normal (such as, let's say, for example, something abnormal like polygamy), some will attempt to corral us to all be in the same pen. For me, finding out what most people do is far from being definitive information. It can be interesting, but it can also be a snare that has us worshiping Approval instead of God our Father and Jesus our Lord.

Most of those who practice polygamy according to Biblical principles will basically operate as dual monogamies, but some will not; they will be to one degree or another more intimate with each other as a group than that. It all depends on what the individuals mutually desire. This has been discussed many, many times in these forum threads, and thus far not even our most avid Scripture authorities have been able to find that elusive verse that forbids sexual intimacy between one woman and another who isn't that woman's near kin.

So, yeah, getting a bigger bed is always a godly option as long as only one husband is involved!

 

[tps26]

It is not normal. But it is practised by some. Each to their own.

Consider true normalcy from the perspective of psychologist and polygynist William Marston, from his book Emotions of Normal People, written nearly 100 years ago:

"No matter how normal a person may be, he has been taught, from earliest childhood, to evaluate his own behaviour by the measuring stick of convention. What his father did before him, and what his neighbours are now doing around him, constitute the standard of normalcy. And this ridiculous method of evaluation is, to a considerable extent, sanctioned by the so-called “social scientists” of to-day—evidently because psychology, so far, has failed to furnish any tangible description of a normal human being, save a statistical one. A bold psychiatrist, not so long ago, frankly stated that if a young girl attended a school where a majority of the other girls smoked and drank, she would be eligible for psychiatric examination if she refused also to smoke and drink. I take it that the eminent doctor who made this assertion did not mean to suggest smoking and drinking as a test of social submission to girl friends, but rather as an emphatic laying down of the rule that average behaviour of a given group constitutes a proper standard by which the normalcy of any member of the group may be scientifically measured. No principle for study and improvement of the individual could be more pernicious than this.

It is pernicious for several reasons, but principally for this. The part of the behaviour of any member of a group of human beings which any other member of the group is able to observe, constitutes a small and unrepresentative fraction of the other person’s total conscious activities. The part of any individual’s behaviour which he permits other individuals to observe is that part which he believes will find most merit in the observer’s eyes and, therefore, will probably procure the maximum benefit, of one sort or another, for the person observed. People are taught, from earliest childhood, that the “right thing to do” is what they are told to do by those who are able to give them rewards. Children tend, therefore, to behave, in the presence of their parents, according to the rules of behaviour set by the parents. With other children, their behaviour is quite different. Still, their responses are not wholly normal, because they have already learned to shape their actions in such a way as to produce the effect upon other children most advantageous to themselves. In absolute secret, however, with no other individuals present, the child behaves in a radically different manner. This secret conduct is most normal. Yet the child quickly learns to regard it as most abnormal. As the individual grows older, his explicit behaviour becomes more and more controlled by what he thinks other people will approve of, and will reward him for most handsomely. His own normal self, determined as it is by his physical body structures, continues to express itself in secret, but gradually this normal behaviour becomes almost wholly implicit, in order not to reveal itself in some action not beneficial to the subject in the eyes of his fellows. Thus human beings, by adhering to the general type of observable behaviour in their own group, learn to regard more than one half of their normal selves as abnormal. In order to continue to be thought normal, they must continue to regard their own natural, secret behaviour as abnormal. Moreover, though they may have a shrewd suspicion that other members of their particular group are behaving in secret very like themselves, they quickly learn to regard such secret normalcy of their fellows, whenever discovered, as disgustingly abnormal also. Upon learning that neighbour John Smith is secretly enjoying a true love relationship with a woman who could not advantageously be presented as Mrs. Smith, each secretly normal individual quickly denounces Smith’s conduct with all the virulence at his command. Another stone has been added to the burden of abnormality under which humanity is labouring. All of which means, so far as emotional re-education goes, that the stupendously difficult task confronting the clinical psychologist is to convince normal people that the normal part of their emotions is normal. The more normal they are, the more people tend to entertain an “inner conviction” of abnormality. It is very easy, therefore, to detect some normal love longing which the subject already believes to be utterly abnormal, and to convince him (or more likely her), that his secret emotion must be “sublimated” into learning to play church music, or writing essays on art, which will never be published. But it is ridiculous to suppose that these so called “sublimations” will really do anything more than deprive the woman of part of her normal self which, prior to the “analysis”, she had at least a fighting chance of ultimately expressing overtly in a normal way.

The only practical emotional re-education consists in teaching people that there is a norm of psycho-neural behaviour, not dependent in any way upon what their neighbours are doing, or upon what they think their neighbours want them to do. People must be taught that the love parts of themselves, which they have come to regard as abnormal, are completely normal. More than this, people must be taught ultimately, that love (real love, not “sex appetite”), constitutes, in the human organism, the ultimate end of all activity, and that to gain this end appetite emotion must first, last, and always be adapted to love."
-----------------------

All that to say, in some people the content of fantasy might be more normal than the behavior of the majority. Their normalcy is resigned to fantasy by a desire to be just like everyone else. I wouldn't be too concerned with what others do or don't do beyond its usefulness in broadening your own perspectives. Not everyone is the same.
I think @rockfox makes a really practical application of an otherwise difficult burden.

 

[rockfox]

I see some took my idea as three-somes; which isn't what I was talking about per se. I'm just talking about being comfortable with each others intimate life and being able to share a bed. Keep in mind it wasn't even 1000 years ago when for most of our ancestors the whole family shared a single room house (and much much less time in some cases). Sex wasn't this deep dark hidden away thing which no one ever was exposed to outside of a porno.

 

[frederick]

I see some took my idea as three-somes; which isn't what I was talking about per se. I'm just talking about being comfortable with each others intimate life and being able to share a bed. Keep in mind it wasn't even 1000 years ago when for most of our ancestors the whole family shared a single room house (and much much less time in some cases). Sex wasn't this deep dark hidden away thing which no one ever was exposed to outside of a porno.

Many in the world today still live in very modest accommodation and have numerous people sharing small "homes". Some of those who live in 1st world situations have a distorted view of life for the rest humanity today. Even our office manager lives in a one room house with other extended family members; including children and grandchildren. Sometimes a curtain separates adults and children but even that isn't always the case.

A bed is nothing more than a mat on the floor so a bigger bed is just a bigger mat.

 

[Mbhs]

I've known many people in my life who have successfully done this.

If you want normal, then stick with monogamy.

And vanilla ice cream.

And average intelligence.

And divorce.

And lack of discipline for your children.

And, for many people, abject loneliness -- even in marriage.

These are all, unfortunately, about as normal as normal can get.

There is always what most people do, and even in groups of people fellowshipping about something that is far from normal (such as, let's say, for example, something abnormal like polygamy), some will attempt to corral us to all be in the same pen. For me, finding out what most people do is far from being definitive information. It can be interesting, but it can also be a snare that has us worshiping Approval instead of God our Father and Jesus our Lord.

Most of those who practice polygamy according to Biblical principles will basically operate as dual monogamies, but some will not; they will be to one degree or another more intimate with each other as a group than that. It all depends on what the individuals mutually desire. This has been discussed many, many times in these forum threads, and thus far not even our most avid Scripture authorities have been able to find that elusive verse that forbids sexual intimacy between one woman and another who isn't that woman's near kin.

So, yeah, getting a bigger bed is always a godly option as long as only one husband is involved!

I have seen this line of thinking on here and disagree. Did your read my original post? To stick with monogamy is not to stick with boring, or divorce, or unruly children. That is absurd.

 

[RainyLondonFog]

I have seen this line of thinking on here and disagree. Did your read my original post? To stick with monogamy is not to stick with boring, or divorce, or unruly children. That is absurd.

I agree with you that monogamy doesn't mean a slew of bad things. A wife is a gift from God, even if it's one. I don't think he meant to imply that monogamy is bad or that a single wife is nothing special, I think he was just saying consenting adults may find there's more to explore. It was a bit feathering ruffling, but I really don't think he meant an offense - or at least I'm hoping not.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Is this realistic? Do people really do that? Or is this just a fantasy?

This is an area that is considered highly personal and not at all polite conversation. This simplest way to put it is that we have been lied to in almost every way possible about sex and marriage and it is imperative that we all search out the truth with diligence and humility. It is also vital to point out that a Biblical family could not ever countenance swinging, casual sex or anything that even approaches adultery. But the marriage bed is undefiled.

 

[FollowingHim]

But it's even more important to point out that the suggestion, and clarifying question, were just on where people sleep at night. It's an enormous leap to assume anything else.

The New Zealand Maori traditionally slept in sleeping houses where 10-20 naked adults would sleep side by side on the floor, in a hut so low you could not even stand up, with a low door you could only crawl through. Early settlers described their villages as looking like Lilliput from Gulliver's Travels. What's more, women and children would lie down one side of the hut, and men down the other. An important man's wife might have the "honour" of sleeping at his feet, but he was sleeping beside other men - so close they were touching. No fire inside, few blankets even, they kept warm by simply packing enough people in the room to keep it warm. No privacy whatsoever - but a very practical arrangement for many reasons.

But it clearly illustrates that "who you sleep with" and "who you have sex with" are two very different questions. And that absolutely any sleeping arrangement is possible, as suits your individual family.