• 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.

Western Missionary in Polygamous Culture Dilemma

Z

Zach

Member
Male
"When a Polygamist Is Converted What Should He Do About His Marriages?"

The link is an example of the "problem" faced by missionaries in PM contexts, as noted in my intro post.

If you don't know John Piper, he is probably the most famous and respected living teacher both in evangelical missionary circles and Reformed/Calvinist circles. Since I operate in both of those circles, he is one of my favorite guys on most subjects. He's also a brilliant scholar, and Chancellor of the Bethlehem College and Seminary in Minneapolis founded by him and his church during his pastorate, in part because his amazing teaching gift was attracting so much attention from folks who wanted to come and learn more from him. But in the linked post, he really agonizes to find a Biblical solution to this very practical question, and in the end he acknowledges that a truly satisfying answer is above his pay grade.

From years of listening to Dr. Piper, I have no doubt that if asked how to pastor an American convert currently living in a same sex union he would have no trouble saying that: (1) their "marriage" is no such thing, so to "sever" it is only to sever a non-existent sham, (2) that their sodomy is sin which must be repented of and forsaken, and (3) that they should have no hesitations about a legal and practical "divorce" since their "marriage" was a sinful non-entity in the first place. But he knows that Scriptural treatment of polygyny is very different from its treatment of homosexuality. So he's held back from this error: "the Church of England in the nineteenth century held a staunch position that polygamists must divorce all but one of their wives in order to join the church." It appears the Anglicans loosened up on that a bit in 1988.
 
Last edited:
I like John Piper too, but he has some other videos on marriage, where he went off the rails because of his monogamy only assumptions, and one, simply because he waters down the meaning of submission, where he went wayyyy off the rails, unfortunately. Feminism is the scourge of the modern Evangelical church, but there are a few of us who are pushing back, one individual at a time.
 
While I have other resources on https://natsab.com/biblical-marriage/ I recommend specifically this book: https://www.amazon.com/Evaluating-Christianitys-Interpretation-Biblical-Polygamy-ebook/dp/B0106RVRZS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1534645265&sr=8-1&keywords=evaluating+western+christianity's+polygamy

The fact is, Christianity is DOA on this topic and stands guilty of unfathomable cultural and relational destruction in addition to forcing women into prostitution and children into starvation with their false mono only doctrines.

Brave men and women such as Martin Madan, greatest preacher, hymnwriter and theologian you've never heard of, have dared speak truth to power and been crushed. Cowards like Piper who know but 'agonize over Biblical solutions' will be held accountable. May God have mercy!
 
PeteR said:
While I have other resources on https://natsab.com/biblical-marriage/ I recommend specifically this book: https://www.amazon.com/Evaluating-Christianitys-Interpretation-Biblical-Polygamy-ebook/dp/B0106RVRZS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1534645265&sr=8-1&keywords=evaluating+western+christianity's+polygamy

The fact is, Christianity is DOA on this topic and stands guilty of unfathomable cultural and relational destruction in addition to forcing women into prostitution and children into starvation with their false mono only doctrines.

Brave men and women such as Martin Madan, greatest preacher, hymnwriter and theologian you've never heard of, have dared speak truth to power and been crushed. Cowards like Piper who know but 'agonize over Biblical solutions' will be held accountable. May God have mercy!
Click to expand...

This has been on my heart a lot lately. I keep hearing sermons about the need for repentance in the church so we can be effective change agents in the world, but these same preachers cling to these lies blinded by the destruction we the church have wrought in spreading them. I am confident that Christ our Master will continue to sanctify His bride. Or Brides...
 
Zach said:
So he's held back from this error: "the Church of England in the nineteenth century held a staunch position that polygamists must divorce all but one of their wives in order to join the church."
Click to expand...
That is a very interesting thesis, I had no idea it existed. It is unfortunate that the author very clearly has his opinion about polygamy firmly decided from the start, and clearly then seeks to interpret everything he reads to fit his presuppositions. However, even from that biased starting point, his basic conclusion ends up about as neutral as could be hoped for from a mainstream Christian - that polygamy can possibly be tolerated in a convert. Had he started from an unbiased starting point his conclusions would no doubt have swung further in that direction.

I have not finished reading it yet, but ran into a quote I thought I should mention before I forgot. Page 17:
The Distinction between Ought and Is In referring to what some ethicists have called the “naturalistic fallacy,” John Frame says that “from premises about what is…you cannot deduce conclusions about what you ought to do.” That is, merely expressing what is done does not in itself set forth a moral requirement. As an example of such a fallacy, someone might say, “cake is delicious; therefore we ought to eat cake.” But it does not follow that just because cake tastes good that we ought to eat it. Similarly, polygamy is evident among God-honoring characters in the Bible, but this does not mean that we ought to support polygamy. As we study dozens of biblical examples regarding polygamy, we must be careful not to commit this fallacy. However, the following is not a naturalistic fallacy because there is an “ought” (or, moral obligation) within both the premise and conclusion.

Premise: monogamy is morally right.
Conclusion: we ought to marry only one wife.

Careful interpreters will be able to distinguish between the two examples.
Click to expand...
Here he subtly makes an enormous leap in logic, without possibly realising he is doing it.

He correctly quotes John Frame pointing out that a description of something is not a prescription for your life. In other words, just because David committed adultery doesn't mean you should too, and just because Jacob had multiple wives doesn't mean you should to do that also. The fact that people in the past did something does not mean that you ought to copy them.

The correct conclusion from this is that polygamy is not mandatory just because people did it in the past. The examples neither prescribe nor forbid it, they are neutral.

But that's not the conclusion he goes to. He adds the word "support". He says that just because Godly people in the Bible were polygamous doesn't mean we should "support polygamy", which I take to mean "support Christians who are polygamous".

This is conflating two very separate issues - how I should behave in my life, and how I should judge the behaviour of others.

Finally, his example of something that is "not a naturalistic fallacy" is:
"Premise: monogamy is morally right.
Conclusion: we ought to marry only one wife."

That is a serious fallacy because it presupposes that only one option is right. You could equally say:
"Premise: celibacy is morally right.
Conclusion: we all ought to be celibate."

You might as well say "bananas are good to eat, therefore we should only eat bananas".
 
Here he is quoting someone else, but the quote is rather illogical (page 20). I'm sure you'll all spot the logical error that is made. Emphasis mine:
This leaving also implies the exclusiveness of the relationship: husband and wife, and no other interfering party, are bone of each other’s bones, flesh of each other’s flesh. This exclusivity in the marriage relationship is ultimately rooted in the monotheistic nature of God. Just as the one God (Yahweh Elohim) created the whole of humanity for fellowship with himself, so the man and the woman made in God’s image were to be exclusively devoted to each other in marriage.
Click to expand...
 
Ok, the further I go, the worse the reasoning gets. Here he is with Joash:
The polygamous unions of King Solomon and King Joash pose some difficulties. They were not pagan rulers living in opposition to Yahweh. ... I will argue that it was only after these men strayed from God that their hearts embraced a plurality of wives.
...
The account of [Joash's] reign is found in 2 Chronicles 24. “And Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the days of Jehoiada the priest. Jehoiada got for him two wives, and he had sons and daughters” (vv. 2-3). To some, the reasons appears straightforward:

Joash lived a godly life from beginning to end.
Joash had multiple wives.
Therefore, God approves of polygamy.

A closer look, however, leaves this argumentation wanting. Scripture says Joash lived a godly life “all the days of Jehoiada the priest,” not all the days of his own life. While the first portion of his life (in which he restored God’s house) pleased the Lord (v. 4), the latter portion was defined by apostasy.
Click to expand...
Here he uses a straw man argument, and completely contradicts the scripture he's just cited.

Straw man: "Joash lived a godly life from beginning to end." Nobody claims that. Joash lived a godly life "all the days of Jehoiada the priest" - as he says himself.

Contradiction of scripture: Claims that Joash only took multiple wives after straying from God. But the scripture he just cited clearly states that Joash took those wives during the days of Jehoiada the priest, ie during the period that everyone agrees he was living a godly life.

He is desperate to interpret absolutely everything negatively against polygamy, to the point that he twists and denies the very scripture he's quoting in order to do so.
 
For clarity, note that I am criticising the second link posted by @Zach. The first link, by John Piper, is very good. I'm not criticising Piper.
 
As I recall, Dr Luck has a great video in his series on the 'us and the ought' fallacy.
 
If only I owned a Christian bookstore! [insert thinking emoji here]
 
FollowingHim said:
Contradiction of scripture: Claims that Joash only took multiple wives after straying from God. But the scripture he just cited clearly states that Joash took those wives during the days of Jehoiada the priest, ie during the period that everyone agrees he was living a godly life.
Click to expand...

It is worse than that. Not only was it at that time, but Jehoiada was the one who gave him the wives!
 
This...

I might say, "OK, those who have two wives, be faithful to both of them until the next generation, or until one of them dies. But never do this again."
Click to expand...

...is the loving monogamist solution. Funny how that almost never was the solution in real life; and that tells you something.

Piper will never be able to deal with the polygamy issue honestly because he does not support Patriarchy but rather was foundational in pushing the a replacement in the form of a false feminism in sheep's clothing Complementarianism.

He can't find a satisfying answer because no answer that causes women feel-bads will be satisfying to him or his audience. Which probably explains why his end conclusion after the quote was just to punt.
 
rockfox said:
This...



...is the loving monogamist solution. Funny how that almost never was the solution in real life; and that tells you something.

Piper will never be able to deal with the polygamy issue honestly because he does not support Patriarchy but rather was foundational in pushing the a replacement in the form of a false feminism in sheep's clothing Complementarianism.

He can't find a satisfying answer because no answer that causes women feel-bads will be satisfying to him or his audience. Which probably explains why his end conclusion after the quote was just to punt.
Click to expand...

It amazes me how reformed theologians will hold to a very strict hermetic on everything except biblical marriage. If one follow’s the same hermeneutical method that they use for everything else, the only conclusion is that plural marriages are blessed by God. But, somehow it just doesn’t compute.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
It amazes me how reformed theologians will hold to a very strict hermetic on everything except biblical marriage. If one follow’s the same hermeneutical method that they use for everything else, the only conclusion is that plural marriages are blessed by God. But, somehow it just doesn’t compute.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a great target audience.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
It amazes me how reformed theologians will hold to a very strict hermetic on everything except biblical marriage. If one follow’s the same hermeneutical method that they use for everything else, the only conclusion is that plural marriages are blessed by God. But, somehow it just doesn’t compute.
Click to expand...
Which is why I, who still considers myself to be of the branch known as fundamentalists, have no choice but to accept the institution of marriage in all of its biblical forms. My respect for scripture and its strict interpretation gives me no choice.
 
@Mojo's response triggered an understanding as I've seen this sort of thing at work in other contexts. What is going on @Asforme&myhouse is that while the originators of that system of theology developed a form of theology logicly (sort of) it was handed down as received tradition. So with those who have it now, it doesn't matter what the logic of their theology would demand, they won't go beyond the received tradition.

A different way to look at it though (considering polygamy was an issue at the time of Calvin) is that whatever the logic of ones theology, it still is in subjection to cultural beliefs.

Not saying this is as it should be, just that is how it plays out too often.
 
FollowingHim said:
Here he is quoting someone else, but the quote is rather illogical (page 20). I'm sure you'll all spot the logical error that is made. Emphasis mine:
Click to expand...

And what are you getting at?
To quote the Bible requires explanation but to quote from page 20 requires none?
 
When I first publicly announced my poly situation, everyone came out of the woodwork to denounce it. Some appealed to my deceased father or a mutual respected deceased friend: what would they say?

My dad would question my sanity at marrying 2 women, but otherwise have no objection.

My friend was asked this very question by a missionary. He thought about it a while then said, "They are ineligible for church leadership as elders or deacons. Otherwise, there is nothing to do."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top