Pastor Matt

[Anonymous]

I recently sent out a some emails to Pastors in my town asking if I would be welcome in their churches. I briefly explained my beliefs in Christian Polygyny. I only received two responses. I received this response today from a Pastor. I noticed his comment at the end "So I hope this helps you understand where we stand as a church on marriage" ( What about where the Bible stands on marriage ?)

Hi Fairlight,

Please know that by God's grace all sinners are welcome at our church and we pray that the Holy Spirit convicts each one of sin so that we make the appropriate changes in our lives by the power of the Holy Spirit.

We believe that God's design for marriages is one man and one woman for life.

Here's why:

Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. ("wife" is singular)

Jesus taught: Matt 19:4-6
And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (the word "two" cannot be redefined)

And then there is Rom 13:1-3
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

And according to California Family Code Section 2201:

(a) A subsequent marriage contracted by a person during the
life of a former husband or wife of the person, with a person other
than the former husband or wife, is illegal and void from the
beginning, unless:
(1) The former marriage has been dissolved or adjudged a nullity
before the date of the subsequent marriage.
(2) The former husband or wife (i) is absent, and not known to the
person to be living for the period of five successive years
immediately preceding the subsequent marriage, or (ii) is generally
reputed or believed by the person to be dead at the time the
subsequent marriage was contracted.
(b) In either of the cases described in paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a), the subsequent marriage is valid until its nullity
is adjudged pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 2210.


So I hope this helps you understand where we stand as a church on marriage. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

God bless you and lead you!

Pastor Matt






My question for you is are you currently practicing polygyny?

 

[Taller on my knees]

Hi Fairlight,
This letter speaks directly to the need of the church to genuinely examine this issue. I just spoke of this need in another post this morning. I know that the day is near when his last objection will be nullified by the court system. By far, this is the argument which carries the most weight, in Biblical context, to a person who practices polygyny in modern America. The rest is simply a matter of denominational dogma.

 

[CecilW]

May I suggest a reply?

Dear Pastor Matt:

Thank you for your pleasant reply.

As it happens, I have received Jesus as my Savior, taken Him as my Lord and Master, been adopted into the family of God, have passed into life, and thus am no longer a sinner. (Not to say that I see myself as perfect, but apparently He refuses to hear anything about it!) Am I still welcome?

Thank you for clarifying where your denomination stands on marriage. May I respond?

Gen 2:24, Matt 19:4-6 (and don't forget Eph 5:31): Taken in context, both Jesus and Paul quoted Genesis in defense of the durability of marriage. The exclusivity was not even under discussion.

If you would like to explore standard objections of modern Christianity on this subject further, I would be glad to do so with you, or refer you to a number of male friends, if you would be more comfortable. The doctrine of monogamy entered the church centuries after Christ's ascension, and cannot be defended from Scripture.

Your second objection is interesting. But let me ask, Did not Jesus say to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's? In saying, "What God has joined together ..." was Jesus not placing the subject of marriage squarely in the province of God rather than Caesar? If the State Supreme Court uphold's the right of gays to marry, will you feel obligated to perform such weddings, or will you deny the State's right to define this relationship? In light of the answers I would expect you to give to these questions, can you honestly use the current, changeable state of civil law as an argument for anything more than caution? Or against the unchanging nature of Divinely decreed morality?

Finally, you asked whether I am currently practicing polygamy? I am currently and enthusiastically being courted by and courting a wonderful Christian man. We have great hopes for our future. I AM blessed!

May God bless and lead you as well,
Fairlight

Oh, and for anyone new around here who might wonder, the "wonderful Christian man" mentioned -- ain't me!

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Write him back and give to him the original Greek language; "my man and my woman" is not the same as a marriage. Then ask him if he accepts people who are in private covenant unions in the Lord which is legal underneath the authority of the Supreme Court ruling Lawrence V. Texas. Marriages are state legalized institutions created under the Roman/Catholic/State system in the middle english era. There were no marriages in the Bible era only private covenant unions. Of course, if you did do this you would blow his mind likely.

 

[CecilW]

Or maybe ...

Finally, you asked whether I am currently practicing polygamy? I am joyfully and confidently heading into it as fast as circumstances permit. I AM blessed!

Maybe the paragraph about not being a sinner anymore is too snarky as well. Though I do like it ... *sigh* Maybe better would be ...

Thank you for your warm reply and welcome. I look forward to visiting you soon, and welcome the Holy Spirit's work in my life, though I am, at Jesus' command, quite suspicious of man-made traditions.

Ok, I'll now shut up with the suggestions before Sir BumbleBerry takes over and things get really interesting! He's already looking over my shoulder and demanding, "Where's the chocolate in all this?" :lol: :shock:

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, I'll now shut up with the suggestions before Sir BumbleBerry takes over and things get really interesting!

As always....I would LOVE to hear from my diminutive friend !

 

[CecilW]

Ok, I'll now shut up with the suggestions before Sir BumbleBerry takes over and things get really interesting!

As always....I would LOVE to hear from my diminutive friend !

Remember -- you asked for it ... :lol:

So I asked Sir BumbleBerry what CHOCOLATE had to do with it? He gave me one of his famous pitying looks. Apparently I'm dense. Or he's young. Or maybe old enough to actually BE that wise. Anyway ...

He said that it's a matter of latching onto and operating the promise in Isaiah 55 or so? that says His word will not return unto Him void. And that what goes in WILL be returned, one, um, way or the other.

His devious little strategy is really quite simple, and makes a twisted sort of sense.

• Buy Hershey's Nuggets -- you know the one's in gold and silver wraps that have bits of nuts inside?
• Unwrap them just enough to get to the bottom.
• With a reaaly fine tip pen, or perhaps a needle, write truth from the Word.
• Seal them back up and pass them to the pastor as a gift.
• He eats them. Who doesn't appreciate and eat chocolate?
• The truth has now gone into his innermost being. That's scriptural isn't it?
• But having done so, it must, well, be returned. And
• His word will not be returned void, but will accomplish that which He pleases and prosper in the thing whereto He sent it.
• Voila! The Pastor, if he is sensitive to the Word, will find himself changed!

And there you have it! Sir BumbleBerry's strategy for correcting tradition bound pastors. Conversion by Chocolate.

 

[CecilW]

Oops. Double Post

 

[Anonymous]

Oh and why not send a response to Pastor Matt, some wonderful suggestions made.

I did reply to him yesterday. I even told him I had posted his response to me here. I then invited him to come on over to BF (I gave him the link to the site) to have a look at the posted opinions of BF members. So far, no word back from him.

 

[Taller on my knees]

I sincerely hope that he will join us! He was responding in the way that he was trained to respond. I pray that the Lord will work on the condition of his heart in this matter.

 

[Anonymous]

The truth has now gone into his innermost being.

Why on earth would any Pastor want to settle for anything less! Isn't "Truth" the heart and soul of the Bible ? If we claim to love God, shouldn't we love searching the Scriptures in order to find truth? If I received a letter from my boyfriend, I would waste no time opening it and reading what it said. I would commit the words to heart & memory. I would not just leave that letter on my nightstand unopened, collecting dust.....while still claiming to love the sender.

Blessings,
Fairlight, the naive

 

[CecilW]

Uh-huh! And does your boyfriend, from time to time, employ chocolates? See? That little stinker SB is pretty schmardt! :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Here is another response I received from a different Pastor.

Dear Fairlight...You need to understand that our members practice
monogamy and that in fact is California state law. The Rev. Fred

:? I only asked if I would be welcome in his church :?

 

[CecilW]

Wow! Short, sour, and to the point. Glad they're so law abiding. Guess he has no right to stick the "Rev." in front of his name for two reasons:
a) It is a name reserved for God Himself. Which he ain't. And ...
b) It implies that he's primarily interested in what the Bible says, which he also clearly ain't.

 

[Anonymous]

Wow! Short, sour, and to the point. Glad they're so law abiding. Guess he has no right to stick the "Rev." in front of his name for two reasons:
a) It is a name reserved for God Himself. Which he ain't. And ...
b) It implies that he's primarily interested in what the Bible says, which he also clearly ain't.

He also officiates at same sex unions and has even allowed the local coven of Wiccans to participate in a multi-faith event held yearly at his church. They were even allowed to pass out their own literature. But "poly girl" here ain't welcome! :?

 

[CecilW]

He also officiates at same sex unions and has even allowed the local coven of Wiccans to participate in a multi-faith event held yearly at his church. They were even allowed to pass out their own literature. But "poly girl" here ain't welcome! :?

WOW! Didn't Chic Publications used to carry cartoon booklets describing pastors like that? Closet Satanists?

 

[Isabella]

He also officiates at same sex unions and has even allowed the local coven of Wiccans to participate in a multi-faith event held yearly at his church. They were even allowed to pass out their own literature. But "poly girl" here ain't welcome! :?

Why on earth would you want to go there? He clearly has ideals you are not agreeable with.

Cecil, Wiccans do not believe in Satan, Satan is a Biblical concept. however, clearly defined, Satanists are atheists, Satan being an archetype that represents self interested humanism (distinguished from altruistic humanism or innate morality of humanity, in general). Wicca is an earth based religion which primarily worships a Earth Goddess and are Polytheists, they don't believe in the validity of the Bible. I hope this helps.

B

 

[CecilW]

Cecil, Wiccans do not believe in Satan, Satan is a Biblical concept. however, clearly defined, Satanists are atheists, Satan being an archetype that represents self interested humanism (distinguished from altruistic humanism or innate morality of humanity, in general). Wicca is an earth based religion which primarily worships a Earth Goddess and are Polytheists, they don't believe in the validity of the Bible. I hope this helps.

Sure 'nuff, Bels. And we Christian folk don't believe in an Earth Goddess, but do believe that the spirits invoked and involved with Wicca are either Satan himself, or his followers among the spirit world, in some of their many disguises. Anything to provide an attractive alternative to the One True God!

I'm sure that they have generic terms for us as well that are, in fact, not the way we self-describe.

Either way, the post's point was that Wicca is NOT a compatible religion with Christianity, as I and most of this board know it. (Everyone I've met anyway.) And there ARE members of the Christian clergy who are so in disguise. as their true belief system is in fact Wicca or even whole hog Satanists.

 

[Isabella]

Sure 'nuff, Bels. And we Christian folk don't believe in an Earth Goddess, but do believe that the spirits invoked and involved with Wicca are either Satan himself,

This doesn't make sense, how can they invoke a being that they don't believe in at all and in fact reject entirely? You may believe that it isn't a valid religion but to say they are invoking Satan means you believe that they have the power to invoke spirits or even a great big bad such as Satan! Most Wiccans would consider that laughably contradictory.
Either they are praying (pointlessly) to a being that does not exist or they have the power to invoke demons and devils that they don't even believe in...

I'm sure that they have generic terms for us as well that are, in fact, not the way we self-describe.

Funnily enough, I think they refer to you as Christians! Who'da thunk it?

Either way, the post's point was that Wicca is NOT a compatible religion with Christianity

A Point I already made.

Wicca is an earth based religion which primarily worships a Earth Goddess and are Polytheists, they don't believe in the validity of the Bible.

And there ARE members of the Christian clergy who are so in disguise. as their true belief system is in fact Wicca or even whole hog Satanists.

Again these are two completely different belief systems, not the same thing or even on the same spectrum! Replace Wiccans and Satanists with Hindus and Muslims and you get the same problem. I am more likely to believe Satanists would think it funny to pretend to be a Christian and corrupt the faith from within, but Wiccans would not only think that abhorrent morally but Wiccans hold no stock in Christianity and don't share the same symbolism, it would not make sense to them to become Christian priests.

B

 

[CecilW]

Interesting, Bels. I know that you have made it clear that you are not, and have no interest in becoming Christian. Is that because you are already Wiccan? I guess it is a possibility ...