What good is polygamy? Questions and accusations we get

[eternitee]

I am not an expert and do not have all the answers by any means, but here are some thoughts:
1. Why would you ever consider PM as it is illegal in our country?
Answer to inquiring friend: If you are defining marriage as a legal process then no worries we do not intend to break the law by getting multiple marriage licenses. That said are you seriously telling me that you are OK with the way our society usually runs things -men cheating on their women (baby mammas) in multiple serial relationships where the women and children end up abandoned? You have no intention of pursuing those men who fail to live up to their responsibilities but somehow want to pursue legal means to prosecute men who are NOT legally married to their women but make a commitment to love and care for them? Please explain your position because it makes no sense to me.
Please be assured that we respect the authority of the land and have no intention of breaking any laws. By the way did you ever get a speeding ticket?
2. Why would you bother to study something that is so obviously divisive in the church?
Answer: Why would you NOT study any and all parts of something God chose to share with us? Are you more scared of what the neighbors think than of what your God thinks?
3. Why would you bring this up to your wife? Has she become scared you are looking for another wife? (while we do not have any plans, my wife is more excited about the prospects than I for many reasons)
Answer: Our society has instilled a lot of fear in women that a new woman brings abandonment and loss to the first wife. This fear is very justified because we see it all the time. I would not pursue anything based on deceit and lies. My wife knows how I feel about her and she is secure in our relationship.
4. Since PM is not accepted in most churches, isn't this just a way to prove yourself more superior or flaunting your liberty?
Answer: I am more interested in what my God thinks of me. He knows my heart and knows my intentions. My motivation in life is not to impress/annoy/flaunt or anything else towards other human beings.
5. We are not condemned from cannibalism either, so are you going to do that too? (This was asked by 2 different people already)
Answer: Lol…that’s a new one. And you were asked it twice??
Are we assuming that the meal was murdered or died of natural causes? If the meal was murdered then clearly it is condemned. If it died of natural causes is it diseased or roadkill? Either way is the meat USDA approved? I’m sorry – I really do not have a good answer for this one, but I’m having a lot of fun figuring out the nuances of it. Maybe someone else can give you a serious answer.
6. Are you trying to make a martyr of yourself over such a silly intellectual idea?
I would not risk so much if I really believed it to be silly.
7. Are you trying to ruin your marriage?
No.
8. How could any man love one woman like he should, let alone more than one?
Answer: So this is a variation of the question of how can women “share” your love and what it must feel like to have “less love”. I ask how many kids they have and how much less love did they feel for child number one when child number two came along? And clearly the more kids you have the worse parent you must be to the existing kids right?
9. Why take up a pagan idea like this since you are supposed to be in ministry, an example to others?
Abraham was a pagan?
10. Polygamy was accepted only due to infertility, and you already have 5 kids so what is your excuse?
Accepted by who? Polygamy has nothing to do with infertility. Kids are a blessing – they come when and how God chooses.

 

[CecilW]

I'm in just an ornery enuff mood today to answer these. You asked for it. Here goes....

1. Why would you ever consider PM as it is illegal in our country?

Here in GA, it is also illegal to keep a donkey in your bathtub or to carry an ice-cream cone in your backpack on Sundays. But does the government really CARE?

1st let's deal with the current legal/illegal situation. I posit that the government doesn't care WHERE you live, WHO you live with, WHAT you call each other, nor WHAT you do between the sheets -- so long as it doesn't create problems for them. How COULD it create a problem for them? You die without a will and they have to sort it out. One wife seeks a divorce, and they have to sort out property issues. These are things which can be easily handled via contract law, in which case they don't care. Oh -- screaming matches that have the neighbors calling the cops... However...

The government is also well aware that the legal prohibition against PM is on very rocky ground. That is why they tread very softly. They'd really rather NOT have someone challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court, considering that in Romer v. Evans, Justice Scalia stated: "polygamy must be permitted ... unless, of course, polygamists for some reason have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals."

So much for the legal concern. But what about the issue of disobeying the law? Aren't Christians supposed to comply? That is, of course, a whole different issue. What if you found, as some have in the Word, that PM seems to be God's solution for certain societal ills? Or even that in some situations men were REQUIRED to enter into PM? Would you agree that we ought to obey God rather than man?

How about if you observe that Jesus said to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's? And that in saying ,"What God has joined together let not man put asunder" Jesus clearly placed marriage in God's court, not Caesar's?

No, the fact that Caesar has made a bunch of rules about something that are not under his authority is no particular bar or concern to someone interested in following God at all costs -- witness the reformers and marters of all ages, who were typically reviled at the time, but whom we revere now.

... to be continued.

 

[CecilW]

2. Why would you bother to study something that is so obviously divisive in the church?

Ummm ... which topics are not divisive?

Some churches pray to saints and to Jesus' mother, using idols... others don't.

Some keep the 4th commandment ... others consider it nailed to the cross.

Some think you go straight to heaven or hell when you die ... others think you "sleep" til the second coming, or go to the drunk tank (purgatory) or maybe even get recycled (re-incarnated).

Some think it's ok to baptize you by sprinkling, while others require full dunking.

Some believe no instrumental music should be allowed as part of divine worship ... others not only expect it, they get out in the aisles and DANCE!

Some expect men to wear suits and ties. In othrs they may well show up in shorts. And let's don't even start on jewelry, and head coverings, and facial hair, and ...

So why is THIS one a problem for you?

 

[eternitee]

Darn - I better go find the donkey!

 

[CecilW]

3. Why would you bring this up to your wife? Has she become scared you are looking for another wife?

'Cause we talk about EVERYTHING! That's part of what makes ours such a good marriage. Don't you? How's that working out for you?

Scared? No. Actually, she's the one looking on my behalf. At church, in regards to our Divine Husband, we call it "witnessing"!

(At this point, watch their face progress through a variety of colors as they come precariously close to apoplexy! :lol: :lol: :lol: )

 

[CecilW]

4. Since PM is not accepted in most churches, isn't this just a way to prove yourself more superior or flaunting your liberty?

Hunh? Whaaaaa...? Did you just say that men with more than one wife ARE superior, but that we shouldn't try to attain for fear someone else will be jealous? Ri-i-i-ight!

Somewhere along the line we're going to have to talk about the writings of James, and what it truly means to meet the needs of the single women in our church. Hint: "I'll pray for you" doesn't cut it!

 

[CecilW]

5. We are not condemned from cannibalism either, so are you going to do that too? (This was asked by 2 different people already)

Only if they have split hooves AND chew their cud. :roll: Care to remove your shoes for a sec? :lol:

 

[CecilW]

6. Are you trying to make a martyr of yourself over such a silly intellectual idea?

If you find it simply a silly intellectual ides, then why does it bother you?

No, I'm not trying to make a martyr of myself. Trying to be a HUSBAND to whomever God wants me to be, rather than limiting myself to the silly traditions of men. Shall we take a look at history?

The question isn't whether martyrdom will result, but whether the issue is true or not. Shall we explore THAT topic?

 

[CecilW]

7. Are you trying to ruin your marriage?

To the contrary! Ours is so wonderful, we've gotten greedy! We both want MORE! This is how the Bible says to do it!

(Expect more apoplexy!)

 

[CecilW]

9. Why take up a pagan idea like this since you are supposed to be in ministry, an example to others?

Actually, I'm trying to be perfect as He is perfect.

In Jeremiah 3 and Ezekiel 23, He describes Himself as having 2 wives. And you know that "the church is His bride" thang? In Revelation, He speaks individually to *7* churches/brides.

Want a serious answer? Ok. Let's talk about examples....

At the end of James 1, Jesus' brother defines pure religion for men as visiting widows and orphans "in their distress". What is their distress? Lack of a husband, and lack of a father.

How do we know? Because James continues on to discuss other forms of distress and specifies that each be met directly. If your neighbor shows up naked, give him a coat. A pair of pants may be apropos as well . If he shows up hungry, warm up some chili.

In either case, DON'T just offer a blessing and shut the door. Or for that matter, offer an off-target solution. If he shows up naked, a bowl of chili is nice, but doesn't really solve the problem any more than a coat does if he's hungry. (However, there are apparently some HATS that are edible ... :roll: )

So we men, to whom the end of James 1 is addressed, when confronted with the husbandless and fatherless in our church, ought ideally to offer to provide the lack. As a church leader, I'm cautiously moving towards doing just that. SOMEONE has to go first. YOU are welcome to do so, if you prefer!

Oops! Can't stop yet! As to the idea being "pagan" ...

The Egyptians were monogamous. That's why they were so alarmed at the rapid increase in the Hebrew population. The demographics were rapidly changing!

The Assyrians had a form of monogamy. A wife could have it written into her marriage contract, but doing so required the addition of a clause that the husband was free to visit temple prostitutes.

Medo-persians? Not sure. But the dismissal of Vashti caused the search which resulted in Esther becoming queen, rather than another queen simply gaining favor.

Greece? 1 at a time. Discard and replace at will. It was their viewpoint, which had seeped into Judaism, which Jesus sought to correct in Matt 19, etc.

Rome? Copied Greece. Took it further. One Emperor sought to marry his horse. She had such a captivating whinny!

Rising and falling, all around. Monogamous nations on parade. And right in the center? Remaining through it all? Polygamous Israel. Now, just who were the pagans? And which the pagan idea and practice?

 

[CecilW]

10. Polygamy was accepted only due to infertility, and you already have 5 kids so what is your excuse?

1st answer: $1,000 to the first person to provide a Bible verse definitively backing that statement.

2nd answer: Compassion. I'm aiming for *12*, but my first wife is TIRED!

3rd answer: Really? Samuel's mom, the second wife, was the "infertile" one. So was Joseph and Benjamin's. What would the Bible story have been like without them? What will the future be like if I DON'T produce children by a second wife?

Oh, and while we're at it ... considering famous monogamists -- Adam, Ahab, Herod, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and PolPot. Hmmm. Clinton... -- it occurs to me that monogamy is horrid for society and should be outlawed.

 

[eternitee]

@ CecilW - I liked your answers, but you skipped question 8?

 

[CecilW]

8. How could any man love one woman like he should, let alone more than one?

Oops. Missed this one. Thank you, eternitee.

And I'll start by saying that eternitee's answer, regarding love multiplying rather than dividing as the objects of our love increase, was right on target. However, for the fun of adding some more answers ...

Frivolous answer: He can't! So he should keep practicing. More wives means more practice. Hopefully, he'll improve! :lol:

Serious answer:He is supposed to model his love for his wife or wives rather specifically on how Christ loved the church and gave Himself for us.

While that love was complete and perfect in every way, it was by no means exclusive.

Nor was it merely corporate (everyone the same), nor subject to the harem's questioning or approval. To put a point on it, when Jesus was talking to Peter, and Peter asked about His relationship and plans for John, Jesus pretty much said. "None o' yer beeswax!"

The issue isn't truly the quantity of women whom a man may love and care for. It is the quality of his husbandmanship. If he gets it right, it doesn't really matter whether there are one or more. If he doesn't, he might best spend some single time figgering it out. Or learning from those who do less talking on the forum (*hanging head*) and more DOING of it day to day. (*Yeeaaaaa Benders, and others!*)

 

[Tlaloc]

I'm going to have fun with this.

1. Because our country doesn't give a damn what people do in bed, but are quick to make examples of poly families when it would bolster a politicians careers. You can have multiple partners if you're a worthless person who doesn't care about the person he's with. That's the quintessence of unjust law, its something that ought to be opposed.

2. Churches in North America are in a state of deterioration and need a smack over the head and serious introspective to get into a state of revival. The various denominations foster cultures of fear (sin is around every corner), hedonism (everything happy and perfect if you just go to church) and sometimes flat out ignorance (we is the only good ones and all others is evil, hurrr) and so stagnate and cannot bring revival to the world around them. It really doesn't take poly to be divisive, I've done it over much, much more mundane things. But if its a topic that will shock some people into really thinking about what they believe then it's the right thing to study.

3. She wants a second wife, and really always has... N\A

4. Absolutely. Everyone should be striving to have a better understanding of scripture and live more fully in the freedom Christ gives. Asceticism is not virtue. Many Christians live in a spirit of fearing something may be sin. I will show I have a sound mind to know sin as it is and not fear 'accidentally' sinning nor fear things that 'may be sin'. This culture of fear is part of what is killing the church, its a disease, and people need to see what its like to live with a healthy understanding of scripture.

5. These people are incredibly dumb on many levels, but there's no way to fix that quickly. For a start, cannibalism is prohibited. People are not Kosher. Now, for those that believe Jesus abolished the food laws so you can eat pigs and rats and people then you might have a problem (but even then not really). But God did condemn eating people, its pretty dang obvious he did. Suggest these people read their bibles and actually study them a bit before opening their mouths.

6. A concept which restructures family dynamics as we know them shapes how society works and how people look at the world. Its primarily a practical idea, secondarily intellectual. If its right its worth fighting for, thats that.

7. N\A, though I would ask the person who asked me that to tell me about their marriage, and if they talked could probably find and offer solutions to their main source of conflict, and that conflict would probably be entirely self-inflicted. I'm much better at marriage than most people (though probably no better than most people on this site).

8. That question would only serve to prove my point in Q7. A man should have the capability to love, lead, and protect many people. Tell them they need to understand what a man should be, once they start to get that they should understand that a Man of God easily loves many, and loving more than one woman is not a hard thing. They're arguing from their own patheticness and immaturity. Just because they fail doesn't mean everyone does.

9. Loaded questions are a sign of prejudice and ignorance. The only purely pagan form of marriage is polyandry, tell them to read their bible first, then come back with real question.

10. I normally don't made statements this broad, but this just calls for it. There is known no culture, society, or group that allowed polygamy only in the case of infertility. There are sub-groups of a culture that allow it only in certain conditions (post Gershom European Jews) including infertility, but even then that is not the only time it was accepted. Ask them to either actually study polygamy before coming to you with such ignorant questions, or come in with humility and ask you the questions without terribly ignorant assumed statements.

That was fun. Good luck with the detractors.

 

[Tlaloc]

Nice posts Cecil. This one especially made me laugh:

5. We are not condemned from cannibalism either, so are you going to do that too? (This was asked by 2 different people already)

Only if they have split hooves AND chew their cud. :roll: Care to remove your shoes for a sec? :lol:

Very nice 'pagan-monogamy' writup, I didn't know about the Egyptians. The Germanic pagans that inherited the Catholic church after the fall of Rome should be added to that list. God knows they have their hand in the fix we're in now.

 

[Leigha]

-

 

[CecilW]

I'm not going to go and try to gnaw on someone's shoulder.

Well, when it comes to spice (the plural of spouse, as mice is the plural of mouse...) ...

It is my personal conviction that we're allowed, nay encouraged, to NIBBLE! :roll: :lol:

 

[CecilW]

It seems apropos to suggest turning the tables and deal with the morality of PM in a direct and simple manner. I suggest asking the following three questions, to each of which your victim *grin* oughta answer "No!"

1) Does the Holy God, who hates the sin that cost Hs son His life, ever portray Himself as sinful, even in allegory? No? Yet He DID portray Himself as plurally married in both Jer 3 and Eze 23. Ergo, can't be sin.

2) Does God tempt men to sin? James 1:17(?) says no. You agree? But in 2Sam 12, God claimed to have provided David with with wives, plural. Ergo, it wasn't wrong for David to accept, and would not be wrong for us.

3) Does God ever give us laws by which to SIN in a RIGHTEOUS manner? No? Wouldn't make sense would it? Yet he gave various laws by which PM should be carried out and conducted appropriately. Eg Deu 21:15.

 

[FollowingHim]

I had an interesting Facebook debate with a very heavily theological acquaintance whose knowledge of scripture I do respect, and he had some good counters to the below ones which I will mention. I am not claiming these are definitive refutations of these points, my point is simply that they can be refuted to the point where somebody who doesn't want to believe them is happy that they think they've been refuted adequately, hence negating their persuasive intention.

2) Does God tempt men to sin? James 1:17(?) says no. You agree? But in 2Sam 12, God claimed to have provided David with with wives, plural. Ergo, it wasn't wrong for David to accept, and would not be wrong for us.

In 2 Samuel 12:11, God then states how he is going to take David's wives and give them to another, causing them to commit adultery. So God states that he is going to cause a sinful act involving multiple wives of David's. So if he is willing to provide David's wives to Absalom in a sinful fashion, we can't necessarily conclude that just because He gave Saul's wives to David that was done in a wholesome fashion.

3) Does God ever give us laws by which to SIN in a RIGHTEOUS manner? No? Wouldn't make sense would it? Yet he gave various laws by which PM should be carried out and conducted appropriately. Eg Deu 21:15.

This can be countered by stating that God can give laws to protect His people (ie the women in this case) even if they are sinned against. He offered plenty of laws about what to do after crimes had been committed, what the restitution would be etc, and none of those mean the crime itself was ok.

Don't bother debating these, we could do that all day and achieve nothing, because my point is not whether these arguments are strong or weak (we can certainly pick holes in them), the point is that these counters can be made and make the debater feel happy that he has so easily shown your ideas to be wrong (in his mind).

I find a far more effective point to make is that God will not command somebody to sin. Yet he required Levirate marriage in his laws, with no exception if the man was already married. Therefore He required polygyny, in at least that one case. If He requires it for some, it cannot be a sin. I have had far better responses to that line of reasoning than the above two.

 

[CecilW]

He offered plenty of laws about what to do after crimes had been committed, what the restitution would be etc, and none of those mean the crime itself was ok.

Yes, and this argument is as easily countered. The laws dealing with theft, etc. were PUNISHMENTS intended to bring the activities, which WERE clearly stated as wrong, to an END. Those to which we refer deal with keeping it GOING smoothly. He does NOT give us laws by which to CONTINUE sinning in a righteous manner. That argument is spurious.

The David one is somewhat harder, though I maintain the premise as accurate. God does not tempt men to sin.