Yahweh sent me a widow friend….

[The Revolting Man]

The older ones don’t respect their dad for choosing to invest in her and her children at the sacrifice of relationship with them.
Rightfully so, they are his obvious responsibility to direct to the Lord and disciple for the kingdom sake.

I want to be gentle here. There is so much humility and openness in your posts and you clearly have the right heart in this matter. But this statement is incorrect. It is never right to hold bitterness, especially against a father. Even a tacit endorsement of bitterness from their mother could really send your children spinning off into a dark hold. As the mother you will set so much of the tone of the family's response to this. Bitterness will eat your children alive.

There is no doubt that taking on a widow with 7 children is a massive undertaking. Its only doable with divine help, but we have free access to divine help. And it is not running off to Las Vegas with the next-door neighbor and the family fortune. Caring for widows and orphans is one of the few hard commands of the New Testament. You can disagree with the methods, but it should never lead to bitterness. That should be opposed fiercely in your children's lives because it will eat them alive.

I love what I'm hearing from you otherwise. You really are handling this in a faithful manner it sounds like.

 

[NVIII's Babe]

Trying to submit to the concept has had its moments of extreme emotions, and almost constant introspection and soul searching. It has been a very quiet, very little to no conversation with my young adult daughters, as I have been constantly surrendering my heart to the concept.
I have sincerely been desiring surrender.
It has still been a diligent and constant choosing to lay it on the altar. Many times every day making a conscious effort to choose to trust Yahweh with it all, to hand the pain in my heart and my confusion to his control.

I feel extremely empathetic over everything you've written in this vein. I have been there - even now, though I feel I'm on the other side of things, old cultural idols and demons will pop up like whack-a-moles, and I have to knock them back. In the early days, it seemed to happen hourly. I recall lamenting the fact to my husband, pure frustration at the persistence of those thoughts, and a near constant pleading with the Lord to take it from me.

I want to encourage you specifically about this:

It has been a very quiet, very little to no conversation with my young adult daughters, as I have been constantly surrendering my heart to the concept.

Early in the journey, polygyny felt big. It consumed my thoughts. A lot of fear resulted for me because we had not told anyone else about our thoughts or intentions, and polygyny was so prevalent in my own mind, I feared spilling the beans. And since I was not confident in my understanding of polygyny or our own beliefs, I was afraid to have to give an answer if I did say something that garnered questions. The fear was somewhat paralyzing - I went from being talkative and sociable to reserved.

Also, *everything* seemed connected to polygyny. Everything anybody said brought it to mind, which made me think of it, which made me fear more I would say something I shouldn't.

It's similar to when a woman is trying to conceive, especially if she is struggling to do so. Infertility or fertility troubles are foremost in her mind. Everything reminds her of babies. She has difficulty relating to others, especially women with children, because she expects them to only talk about their children or she can only think about their children.

Now, years later and solidly on the "other side," (though never totally arrived; my understanding is always being matured and refined and developed) polygyny is small. It is one small topic in a great sea of them. Not everything is about polygyny. I can go weeks living a polygynous life without specifically thinking about polygyny... like I can go weeks living life as a mother of many children without thinking about the logistics of having many children. It is just life and polygyny is a facet, but not The Thing anymore.

This time and understanding and maturity has also lessened my fear of confrontation. Early on, I was afraid to be questioned because I was not sure of the answers. I was living hourly in blind faith! That is good, but as our understanding matures, we gain clarity. That is what apologetics is all about - being able to give an account of your beliefs to others. Now, I am sure of the answers to all the common anti-polygyny talking points. Also, even if presented with one I am unsure about, I am confident in my own choice to follow my husband.

This confidence means I am not afraid of inadvertently leading someone to discover our lifestyle. If that happens, come what may. I'm not so worried someone else will rock my boat.

I want to encourage you that if you continue in this journey - even if you never end up living a polygynous lifestyle - your faith will mature and these underlying fears will subside as your confidence grows. And polygyny will shrink to become just another thing you believe.

This last year we’ve both been very disconnected with our children.
We have lost their hearts.
It really looks disastrous to try to bring another 7 children under our roof with bitterness and the strain that is here now.

If we cant or don’t the relationships, it seems it will be a train wreck.

I am sorry that this is happening. The men here have already given you some good advice and asked good questions of you.

I want to add that allowing children to rule the household will bring more harm than if they were to grow up, walk away, and never look back. I would hate for any parent to experience the latter. But cow towing to children, even adult offspring, is worse. Children (and wives, come to think of it) *will* take advantage of that kind of weakness in their father.

I'm not saying that their feelings or understanding should not be a factor in the final decisions. Certainly, especially adult children, may bring some valid points to the table. I just don't think that a fear of losing them should be steering the ship. In the same way that we choose our children's diets, their activities, their medical decisions, their educations, etc. The father decides all of these things. They may grow up, leave home, and live exactly opposite to every single decision he has made for them. That's their prerogative.

I know it’s hard to pray effectively for strangers. But we really desire prayers for restoration in our family so we can righteously minister to her and her children.

I will pray for your family, for your husband to make a decision that aligns with the Lord's Will for his household.

 

[NBTX11]

My children were a mixed bag, when told about polygamy. The best way for me to handle it was to be open and firm. I took a firm stand on the Word and my beliefs. Not in a mean, confrontational way, but to make clear I deeply held these biblical beliefs. Out of our 3 adult children, one completely accepted it, and is friendly with my second, one disagrees with the belief but is accepting of my choice, and one has had a difficult time with my decision causing some strain in our relationship. Your husband has to be open with his intentions, if he is acting on the intent to add another wife. I wouldn’t spring it on them after the fact.

 

[Joleneakamama]

This last year we’ve both been very disconnected with our children.

You describe things before as being very good. The shepherd leaves the 99 to look for the one that is lost. It is not wrong to help someone in need. It's wrong for she 99 sheep to complain about the attention they didn't get while they were secure fed and protected.

It really looks disastrous to try to bring another 7 children under our roof with bitterness and the strain that is here now.

Bitterness sounds like the children think they are able to judge the parents.

The older ones don’t respect their dad for choosing to invest in her and her children at the sacrifice of relationship with them.

Respect should be there regardless, because less then respect means they are judging someone with WORLDS more life experience!
These children are not even married. They are at grade ONE in life learning to be good members of the household they were born into. Grade TWO is when they find a partner and START learning to be a good husband or wife. Grade THREE is when they START learning to be parents.... and each child adds a level of difficulty and learning. They are pretending they are qualified from Grade school, to judge those studying for their masters degree!
Yes, you have responsibilities to your children, but they also have responsibilities.
They need to be thankful and teachable and humble. They are not in any place to disapprove of you. They are NOT your peers.
Wives should expect what if they withhold approval to manipulate their husbands? Christians can withhold approval and manipulate their Lord? Rebellion is what happens when the one who should submit doesn't want to. Horses balk because their respect and fear is greater for the boogy man in front of them then for the one who holds the reins.

1.5 years is a very short time to be considering polygyny,

Yet that is longer then the time we took getting to know each other, (my sisterwife and us) and marriage was only discussed in the last few weeks.
I know of a woman who married as a third after three days of talking to the man. She had a good marriage that lasted for life. I said yes to my husband about three months after we met. We are going on 27 years this month.
I know that the subject of becoming polygynous can look scarier. But the real issue is alwaya trusting where God is leading. My grandpa was concerned when my mom took the youngest children to the deep end of the pool....so my mom reassured them all by saying "It's OK dad. We're just going to swim on the top." The water at the shallow end was already over the little kids heads! None of us know what we might face tomorrow. Walking by sight through life is what is really scary!

 

[Keith Martin]

Honestly, given the way that you describe your relationship with your children and the timeframe given in this latest post, you may need to slow down. 1.5 years is a very short time to be considering polygyny, honestly, and if you haven't yet got to the point of even mentioning it to your children, this is very early days just for you two and your existing family.

Your first responsibility is to the children you already have. Others that may enter the family later are a secondary consideration. Be faithful first with what you have already been given.

I have seen in my own family, not at all to do with polygamy, the lifelong damage that can be done by a father focussing too much on ministry to others and not enough on ministry to his own children. I can think of people who in their old age still have a strained parent/child relationship that can be traced back to this sort of misprioritisation particularly during the teenage years. Do not fall into this trap.

It will not be surprising to Samuel that I don't agree with much of what he's written in those three paragraphs:

Honestly, given the way that you describe your relationship with your children and the timeframe given in this latest post, you may need to slow down. 1.5 years is a very short time to be considering polygyny, honestly, and if you haven't yet got to the point of even mentioning it to your children, this is very early days just for you two and your existing family.

• I don't see 1.5 years as a short period of time. To the contrary, I believe that, given our Greco-Roman-dominated 'Western' cultures that have been purposefully engineered to be gynocentric, men have become lapdog white knights whose purpose is to ensure that women are 'protected' from inconvenient truths. Furthermore, if one combines a belief that 1.5 years isn't enough to face facts with a marital structure that requires hubby to accept that wifey doesn't have to do something until she comes around to 'getting on board,' wifey will never get on board. It's amazing how immediately wives grasp new concepts when presented with ones that they perceive to be to their advantages.
• Slowing down the processes of enlightenment and preparedness are near guarantees that changes will be postponed until they never happen. Just imagine if we waited to have children until we were fully on board with every aspect of such responsibility or entirely prepared for it -- or if we postponed having a second child until after our first child was entirely enlightened and prepared to share his or her parents!
• No one is owed a perfect experience or existence. Life is by its very nature difficult, and surmounting adversity forges character. That which is rewarded will be repeated, and therefore providing support for a person's selfish desire to maximize hir own existence and perpetuate its inertia while minimizing the importance of meeting the needs and desires of others will ensure that that level of selfishness will be perpetuated. A first wife is not entitled to exclusivity from her husband.

Your first responsibility is to the children you already have. Others that may enter the family later are a secondary consideration. Be faithful first with what you have already been given.

• Considering one's first responsibility to one's children is disordered and antipatriarchal. A wife's first responsibility is to her husband and his vision. Furthermore, even the level of responsibility either a man or a woman has to their children is, these days in this gynocentric culture, greatly exaggerated. One is responsible for feeding, clothing and imparting some values to them, as well as responsible for refraining from killing them, physically or sexually abusing them, or significantly neglecting them (which would entail a near-complete failure to pay them attention, provide for them and protect them). We do not owe our children idyllic childhoods or perfect parenting, a notion that one should recognize was developed as part of keeping fathers subservient to their children as well as their wives.
• If it's part of one's husband's vision to take on another wife and her children, then it's the responsibility of a 1st wife to be supportive of that vision, and, therefore -- especially if those newcomer children are younger than one's own biological children -- those adopted orphans are far from a secondary consideration. I assert that, to follow the dictates of YHWH and Yeshua, a wife's duty is to be faithful to all that one is given, not just the fruit of one's own loins. Again, selfishness is the obstacle to overcome, as well as failure of gratitude for the degree to which all women are dependent on all men.
• No one is owed a perfect experience or existence. Life is by its very nature difficult, and surmounting adversity forges character. That which is rewarded will be repeated, and therefore providing support for a person's selfish desire to maximize hir own existence and perpetuate its inertia while minimizing the importance of meeting the needs and desires of others will ensure that that level of selfishness will be perpetuated. One's biological children are not entitled to exclusivity from their biological parents.

I have seen in my own family, not at all to do with polygamy, the lifelong damage that can be done by a father focussing too much on ministry to others and not enough on ministry to his own children. I can think of people who in their old age still have a strained parent/child relationship that can be traced back to this sort of misprioritisation particularly during the teenage years. Do not fall into this trap.

• Ditto. I can't stress enough how self-centered it is as adults to perpetuate one's own misery and expect others to sympathize with one's supposed raw deal in life to claim that "lifelong damage" is done because one's parents didn't provide the childhood one expected to experience because of one's own 'field research' conducted by formulating a Vision of Idyllism concocted by hobbling together snippets of movies, TV shows and convenient slices of experiences other children had that one envied/envies.
• Parents who then place their focus on endeavoring to be the parents their own parents weren't generally live long enough to watch their own children do the same thing when they become parents.
• No one is owed a perfect experience or existence. Life is by its very nature difficult, and surmounting adversity forges character. That which is rewarded will be repeated, and therefore providing support for a person's selfish desire to maximize hir own existence and perpetuate its inertia while minimizing the importance of meeting the needs and desires of others will ensure that that level of selfishness will be perpetuated. Only extreme examples (significant sexual or physical abuse; significant neglect; complete absence of a parent) have been demonstrated to correlate with predictable negative outcomes. The rest of us, instead, are prone to interpreting lesser comparative examples of supposed abuse, neglect or absence as justification for self-pity.

I cannot emphasize enough, however, how thoroughly I agree with Samuel when he asks . . .

Very important question: Have you actually mentioned marriage to the woman you are talking about? Or is this all just you and your husband musing about what you think could happen? Might you be sacrificing the relationship with your children for something that in reality is a fantasy that may never occur - and could you end up losing your children, her, and her children, and being left alone over this?

I've been wondering the exact same thing ever since reading your first post. I've been tempted all along to assume that the widow woman must know and be part of the conversation, especially given that you report that your husband is in love with her; however, in re-reading everything, I don't see a direct statement to that effect. I don't share the fatalism of defining the whole process as an either/or, but it does seem disordered to me to broach this subject with one's children if one can't even accomplish broaching it with a woman who would be a wife.

My husband has always had a vision to raise a family that would be passionate for the Lord. While we had our bumps and challenges, we had our older ones hearts.
This last year we’ve both been very disconnected with our children.
We have lost their hearts.
It really looks disastrous to try to bring another 7 children under our roof with bitterness and the strain that is here now.

You may want to consider whether this doesn't amount to a bit of unconscious self-fulfilling prophecy on your part, but please hear me: I'm not asserting that I can conclude that this is the case. I only raise it as a possibility because selfishness would agitate for even temporary disaster to descend on one's family if it will serve to prevent having to share what one doesn't want to share.

My only other point to make at this point, @Happyhen, is to encourage you to have a greater level of faith not only in your children but in the power of the effectiveness of how you properly raised them. They are also human beings, and therefore they're going to resist change and attempt to exert power designed to prevent what they're uncomfortable with. However, the fat lady of cognitive dissonance has not yet sung, and you may yet experience what a great many other families have experienced in this organization, as well as in many, many other similar communities: the first reaction is not the last reaction, and just being in the presence of the widow woman's orphaned children should they become a real part of your family may be all that is necessary to warm their hearts. Just in the last year I've directly observed families in which old and new families have become eagerly united, and in each case it was because of simple human bonds created between 1st-family adult children and 2nd-family young ones -- both half-siblings and entirely-unrelated-by-blood 'brothers' and 'sisters.'

This is something you may not have in your power to 'fix' but instead something that will require patience as well as a welcoming spirit.

 

[Keith Martin]

Now, years later and solidly on the "other side," (though never totally arrived; my understanding is always being matured and refined and developed) polygyny is small. It is one small topic in a great sea of them. Not everything is about polygyny. I can go weeks living a polygynous life without specifically thinking about polygyny... like I can go weeks living life as a mother of many children without thinking about the logistics of having many children. It is just life and polygyny is a facet, but not The Thing anymore.

Well spoken.

Amen.

 

[Keith Martin]

My children were a mixed bag, when told about polygamy. The best way for me to handle it was to be open and firm. I took a firm stand on the Word and my beliefs. Not in a mean, confrontational way, but to make clear I deeply held these biblical beliefs. Out of our 3 adult children, one completely accepted it, and is friendly with my second, one disagrees with the belief but is accepting of my choice, and one has had a difficult time with my decision causing some strain in our relationship. Your husband has to be open with his intentions, if he is acting on the intent to add another wife. I wouldn’t spring it on them after the fact.

Excellent, @NBTX11.

Being a parent is generous.

Being a wife is generous.

Being a husband is generous, every time it's offered.

Every human being should be eternally grateful for the generosity inherent in his or her mother and father bringing him or her into the world, no matter how imperfectly that mother and father parented him or her. Other than perhaps at the end of one's life when one has lost the capacity to care for oneself, it is never appropriate for a parent to give a child any power over the right to make important personal decisions.

 

[Keith Martin]

You describe things before as being very good. The shepherd leaves the 99 to look for the one that is lost. It is not wrong to help someone in need. It's wrong for she 99 sheep to complain about the attention they didn't get while they were secure fed and protected.

Boom.

 

[Keith Martin]

Bitterness sounds like the children think they are able to judge the parents.

Boom.

 

[Keith Martin]

Respect should be there regardless, because less then respect means they are judging someone with WORLDS more life experience!

Boom.

 

[Keith Martin]

Wives should expect what if they withhold approval to manipulate their husbands? Christians can withhold approval and manipulate their Lord? Rebellion is what happens when the one who should submit doesn't want to.

And BOOM!

 

[The Revolting Man]

I want to add that allowing children to rule the household will bring more harm than if they were to grow up, walk away, and never look back. I would hate for any parent to experience the latter. But cow towing to children, even adult offspring, is worse. Children (and wives, come to think of it) *will* take advantage of that kind of weakness in their father.

This is so true!

 

[FollowingHim]

It will not be surprising to Samuel that I don't agree with much of what he's written in those three paragraphs:

No, not the slightest bit surprising - particularly since everyone else disagrees with me also! I think that the one point we both agree on is the most important, and I think the fact that we disagree on everything else really helps to emphasise the correctness of that:

Very important question: Have you actually mentioned marriage to the woman you are talking about?

But back to the point I am making about responsibilities, which everyone else critiques quite rightly to some degree as it could be certainly taken too far and that would be quite incorrect - I'll expand on @Joleneakamama's illustration of it in a way which might clarify my intent.

The shepherd leaves the 99 to look for the one that is lost. It is not wrong to help someone in need. It's wrong for she 99 sheep to complain about the attention they didn't get while they were secure fed and protected.

Absolutely true - if the 99 were secure, fed and protected. If the shepherd left the 99 safely in the fold and went off looking for the 1, they have nothing to complain about.

On the other hand, if the shepherd was so focussed on finding the 1 that he neglected the needs of the 99 - e.g. left the 99 out where the wolves could get them while he put all his effort into the 1, potentially losing several more while his back is turned - that shepherd is a terrible steward of what he has been entrusted with.

Even moreso if the shepherd leaves the entire 100 sheep he already has and goes off searching for sheep that are not even his yet but he hopes to make his one day but which may never actually join his flock - giving his attention to sheep he has zero responsibility for at this stage while neglecting those he does have responsibility for.

We must first and foremost be good stewards of what has been entrusted to us. If we do a good job with that, we will be entrusted with more. But if we are doing a poor job with that God will NOT entrust us with more, and will even take away what we were given first. Remember the conclusion of the parable of the talents:

Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

A man's first wife, and her children, are where he proves himself as a husband and father. Those men who do well in this first test WILL be given more responsibilities by God - but if a man cannot raise his first batch of children well but loses them before they even leave home, what on earth would make him think he could do any better with the much more difficult job of another batch that are not even blood related to him and who he is trying to get to know later in life? Pass the first test, then you can graduate to the second, harder one - fail the first without learning from your mistakes and you'll probably make a complete disaster of the second.

Sure the widow and orphans must be cared for by somebody. But even here there is an order of priority. Family still comes first - because who has primary responsibility to care for the widow? Her own family (1 Titus 5:4). Her family has the primary responsibility to care for her, just as you have the primary responsibility to care for your own family. Now, if her family fail to care for her, and you have the capacity to take her on, then certainly do so - but that is still secondary to your first requirement to care for your own.

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Now, I know some people are just going to repeat what has been said above by many people: the kids are selfish to just want their father's attention. If all we're talking about is whiny kids wanting attention - sure, I agree. But it's really not that simple. Teenage daughters especially need to feel the love of a father - if they don't feel a father's love, they will seek that love in the arms of a boyfriend. If a child does not genuinely respect their parents, they will not value their parents advice, will not seek that advice, and will seek the advice of others instead when they get into difficulty. This can ultimately result in children going off the rails physically and losing their salvation spiritually. This is actually important, not something to be dismissed as just whiny kids wanting attention.

 

[Happyhen]

This is a heavy thing. I'll be praying for all of you.

The fact that the moral fabric of God's universe permits polygyny (and it does) doesn't necessarily indicate that your particular husband should marry this particular widow. Perhaps he should and maybe he shouldn't. I will pray that the Lord gives him wisdom and discernment in his decision.

It sounds like a potentially great blessing for this woman and her children. It might also become a wonderful blessing to you and your children. The fact that you deeply love her as a friend (and that your children get along well with hers) seems like a big plus.

My sister was unexpectedly widowed a few years back, and she (and her children) were greatly blessed when ahe remarried a few years later. Marriage is a good thing. Women and children need the leadership, provision, and protection provided by a godly man.

The fact that your husband would consider taking on this heavy responsibility speaks loudly of his good character.

Unfortunately our society (and almost all churches) have taught us many wrong things about marriage (like egalitarian monogamy) . These errors have given women many unbiblical and unreasonable expectations. That makes things much harder for women in your situation. Adjusting to polygyny after 28 years of monogamy is hard, but doing so in the face of opposition from everyone in the world is even harder.

Knowing that God permits polygyny isn't going to be enough to help you joyfully, lovingly, and thankfully receive this woman and her children into your home and life. Knowing that the Law requires you to submit won't cut it.

I believe you will need the Living Water of Jesus Christ flowing in and through you. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, that you will NEED every day! The Divine Life of the Son of God flowing through the Vine (Jesus Christ) into you (a branch) will bear good fruit unto God. When we see His Face, our hearts are changed, and we begin to reflect Him .

In your own strength, there is no hope.

The Son of Man, Yeshua the risen Messiah, has been given all authority in heaven and earth. He is able to fill your heart with peace and love.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will fill you and empower you like He did with Stephen in the book of Acts. In a way, you are laying down your life, following in the steps of the Savior.

If this be the plan of YAHWEH for your family, it is a good thing. Our Father in Heaven really does know what is best. Trust Jesus. Our prayers are with you.

Honestly, given the way that you describe your relationship with your children and the timeframe given in this latest post, you may need to slow down. 1.5 years is a very short time to be considering polygyny, honestly, and if you haven't yet got to the point of even mentioning it to your children, this is very early days just for you two and your existing family.

Your first responsibility is to the children you already have. Others that may enter the family later are a secondary consideration. Be faithful first with what you have already been given.

I have seen in my own family, not at all to do with polygamy, the lifelong damage that can be done by a father focussing too much on ministry to others and not enough on ministry to his own children. I can think of people who in their old age still have a strained parent/child relationship that can be traced back to this sort of misprioritisation particularly during the teenage years. Do not fall into this trap.

Very important question: Have you actually mentioned marriage to the woman you are talking about? Or is this all just you and your husband musing about what you think could happen? Might you be sacrificing the relationship with your children for something that in reality is a fantasy that may never occur - and could you end up losing your children, her, and her children, and being left alone over this?

Thank you, thank you!!

Yes, we’ve discussed this with the widow. We’ve openly discussed it for over a year. Mostly she and I have talked on this subject, but in recent months the three of us have discussed it at length.
She is very open to idea. More as time goes by, but still needs to hear clearly from Yah on whether she is to say yea or not. She has a “fleece”
We don’t expect her “fleece” to be provided until all other gates are clear.

We have discussed it with the elders, while one agrees it’s not sin, he feels it basically isn’t from God in our situation. Another is very opposed.
They have drawn a clear line in the sand on this subject before when a 60 yr old wants to attended the congregation, making it openly known he is desiring to take a young virgin and even touching some inappropriately. His wife is very sad seeming and withdrawn. This has set the stage for their opinions.
So at this time, we would be asked to leave the congregation if we’d proceed. We, and the widow, highly value community. It’s a healthy place to be as a family.
Hubby asked them to fast and pray for an answer. We are asking Yah to speak to them supernaturally if this is indeed the path we are to continue on.
I don’t expect anything to happen quickly here.
Nearly all the dreams and visions I have received as I’ve sought the Lord diligently over this matter, have been in the church setting. We both feel like this is a very carefully chosen path the Father has us on. One that is for the benefit of the spiritual welfare of the congregation. We desire to walk this carefully and only move as Yah directs, with much prayer and fasting. It’s nit about us, but about God moving in our community.

Thank again for your wisdom. Hubby appreciated your words and agreed wholeheartedly. .

 

[Happyhen]

This is so true!

Hubby isn’t bowing to his children. But, like Yahweh, he is praying for a compassionate heart. One that stoops to his subordinates and hears their hearts, their fears, their misgivings and walks them through that in a righteous way. He desires to shepherd them.
Their concerns being that he is deceived and walking into grave sin. It’s only been a few weeks that this was opened to them. It took me over a year. It will take some time here. Time that we need to walk humbly before them. Without shame, yet with much love and care for their perspective.
Our desire is a strong family that stays strong and stays together

 

[Happyhen]

No, not the slightest bit surprising - particularly since everyone else disagrees with me also! I think that the one point we both agree on is the most important, and I think the fact that we disagree on everything else really helps to emphasise the correctness of that:

But back to the point I am making about responsibilities, which everyone else critiques quite rightly to some degree as it could be certainly taken too far and that would be quite incorrect - I'll expand on @Joleneakamama's illustration of it in a way which might clarify my intent.

Absolutely true - if the 99 were secure, fed and protected. If the shepherd left the 99 safely in the fold and went off looking for the 1, they have nothing to complain about.

On the other hand, if the shepherd was so focussed on finding the 1 that he neglected the needs of the 99 - e.g. left the 99 out where the wolves could get them while he put all his effort into the 1, potentially losing several more while his back is turned - that shepherd is a terrible steward of what he has been entrusted with.

Even moreso if the shepherd leaves the entire 100 sheep he already has and goes off searching for sheep that are not even his yet but he hopes to make his one day but which may never actually join his flock - giving his attention to sheep he has zero responsibility for at this stage while neglecting those he does have responsibility for.

We must first and foremost be good stewards of what has been entrusted to us. If we do a good job with that, we will be entrusted with more. But if we are doing a poor job with that God will NOT entrust us with more, and will even take away what we were given first. Remember the conclusion of the parable of the talents:

A man's first wife, and her children, are where he proves himself as a husband and father. Those men who do well in this first test WILL be given more responsibilities by God - but if a man cannot raise his first batch of children well but loses them before they even leave home, what on earth would make him think he could do any better with the much more difficult job of another batch that are not even blood related to him and who he is trying to get to know later in life? Pass the first test, then you can graduate to the second, harder one - fail the first without learning from your mistakes and you'll probably make a complete disaster of the second.

Sure the widow and orphans must be cared for by somebody. But even here there is an order of priority. Family still comes first - because who has primary responsibility to care for the widow? Her own family (1 Titus 5:4). Her family has the primary responsibility to care for her, just as you have the primary responsibility to care for your own family. Now, if her family fail to care for her, and you have the capacity to take her on, then certainly do so - but that is still secondary to your first requirement to care for your own.

Now, I know some people are just going to repeat what has been said above by many people: the kids are selfish to just want their father's attention. If all we're talking about is whiny kids wanting attention - sure, I agree. But it's really not that simple. Teenage daughters especially need to feel the love of a father - if they don't feel a father's love, they will seek that love in the arms of a boyfriend. If a child does not genuinely respect their parents, they will not value their parents advice, will not seek that advice, and will seek the advice of others instead when they get into difficulty. This can ultimately result in children going off the rails physically and losing their salvation spiritually. This is actually important, not something to be dismissed as just whiny kids wanting attention.

Much wisdom here! This reflects my husbands heart exactly. He acknowledges his weakness and sees some failure as a father in some areas. He is desiring at this time to diligently repair the breeches.
Please, pray for him as he endeavors to do this.
The enemy doesn’t want strong and godly families. He only wants destruction, and to mock at all Yah has done in our family.
I desire to stand strong and support my husband with my whole being, heart and life.
We need wisdom for the restoration process and much grace and humility.

 

[Keith Martin]

I want to add that allowing children to rule the household will bring more harm than if they were to grow up, walk away, and never look back. I would hate for any parent to experience the latter. But kowtowing to children, even adult offspring, is worse. Children (and wives, come to think of it) *will* take advantage of that kind of weakness in their father.

This is so true!

I just want to add my own applause to this paragraph you wrote, @NVIII's Babe!

I almost entirely lost my entire family (redundancy intended) a couple years ago over just that type of weak failure on my part to putt a stop to child rule.

 

[Keith Martin]

It will not be surprising to Samuel that I don't agree with much of what he's written in those three paragraphs:

No, not the slightest bit surprising - particularly since everyone else disagrees with me also! I think that the one point we both agree on is the most important, and I think the fact that we disagree on everything else really helps to emphasise the correctness of that:

Yeah, and I want to start off by acknowledging you for the true bigness of your willingness to be so gracious about the introductory statement in my earlier post.

Please bear with me as I disagree further ():

The shepherd leaves the 99 to look for the one that is lost. It is not wrong to help someone in need. It's wrong for she 99 sheep to complain about the attention they didn't get while they were secure fed and protected.

Absolutely true - if the 99 were secure, fed and protected. If the shepherd left the 99 safely in the fold and went off looking for the 1, they have nothing to complain about.

On the other hand, if the shepherd was so focussed on finding the 1 that he neglected the needs of the 99 - e.g. left the 99 out where the wolves could get them while he put all his effort into the 1, potentially losing several more while his back is turned - that shepherd is a terrible steward of what he has been entrusted with.

Even moreso if the shepherd leaves the entire 100 sheep he already has and goes off searching for sheep that are not even his yet but he hopes to make his one day but which may never actually join his flock - giving his attention to sheep he has zero responsibility for at this stage while neglecting those he does have responsibility for.

Samuel, I almost think you need a blinking road sign that accompanies many of these like-minded posts you make, because you have a tendency to vigorously assert advice that is far too discouraging to men -- and, in weighting the scales the way you do, you under-represent not only the responsibilities of the others (most notably wives and children) but misrepresent Scripture in the process (I will not drown us in a list of scriptures that assert male authority and/or female/child partial responsibility but assert that you should feel free to cite passages that support your position that makes a man solely responsible for everything everyone else in his family is experiencing, most especially their emotional states).

Absolutely true - if the 99 were secure, fed and protected. If the shepherd left the 99 safely in the fold and went off looking for the 1, they have nothing to complain about.

I would assert (a) that 'the 99' are entirely capable of significantly contributing to their own security, their own protection and to the filling of their own bellies [a man being where the buck stops doesn't mean he has to do everything]; and (b) that 'they have nothing to complain about' even if the level of security, provisioning and protection is not entirely to their liking (again, as long as significant abuse or neglect are not part of the picture).

On the other hand, if the shepherd was so focussed on finding the 1 that he neglected the needs of the 99 - e.g. left the 99 out where the wolves could get them while he put all his effort into the 1, potentially losing several more while his back is turned - that shepherd is a terrible steward of what he has been entrusted with.

Yeah, sure, of course, but you front-loaded that with such an overly-broad conjecture:

if the shepherd was so focussed on finding the 1 that he neglected the needs of the 99

and then followed it with a horror-show example:

e.g. left the 99 out where the wolves could get them while he put all his effort into the 1, potentially losing several more while his back is turned

that your concluding assertion:

that shepherd is a terrible steward of what he has been entrusted with.

sounds good but in actuality only legitimately applies to your one provided example.

I can easily agree with and support a declaration that, if a shepherd leaves the 99 other sheep already in his possession out where the wolves could get them while he puts all his effort into finding 1 other sheep, then that shepherd is a terrible steward of what he has been entrusted with.

However, to assert, "If a shepherd is so focused on finding the 1 that he neglected the needs of the 99, that shepherd is a terrible steward of what he has been entrusted with," is to overstate the case. Oh, sure, sometimes some men go overboard in their quests to find additional wives, but the regular warnings smack more of paranoid caution than they do of any true reflection of men being 'terrible stewards' (and you already know what I believe about how this paranoid caution tends to reward the wrong people to congregate at biblicalfamilies.org while disincentivizing those who provide the most valuable participation in and support to the organization).

The much more pertinent concern is whether or not 1st wives and their own children whom they hypnotize to become Amen Choirs aren't making every effort to ensure that they remain the sole beneficiaries of a man's largesse.

'So focused' too often would be more accurately phrased, 'More focused than we want him to be,' and my emphasis is on 'want,' because in most circumstances it's not even a matter of any needs being neglected but instead the full range of desires that 1st wives and their children consider themselves entitled to demand from their husbands and fathers.

In most cases, is it a matter of risking 'losing' more of the already-existing flock? Or is it more accurately described as the existing flock threatening to mutiny or abandon the man if the already-existing flock doesn't accomplish manipulating the man into bending to their will?

Even moreso if the shepherd leaves the entire 100 sheep he already has and goes off searching for sheep that are not even his yet but he hopes to make his one day but which may never actually join his flock - giving his attention to sheep he has zero responsibility for at this stage while neglecting those he does have responsibility for.

My gut-level reaction to this declaration is that the 1st Shepherdess ought to be damn glad that the Shepherd devoted as much time, effort, diversion and even sacrifice to bring her into his flock in the first place -- and every one of the 1st Shepherdess's Sheep children should be monumentally more appreciative of that time, effort, diversion and sacrifice than the 1st Shepherdess, because had he not exhibited it back then they wouldn't even exist. Just who are they that they believe they have the authority to judge or even comprehend why their Shepherd would seek to take on another Shepherdess and 99 more Sheep (not to mention that it probably wasn't even possible to end up with 99 sheep with only one Shepherdess!)?

This is reminding me of my Masculinity Prescriptions thread and also making me wonder, Samuel, why you didn't continue participating there where you and I left off, my good man: https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/are-we-not-mules-we-are-devo.16887/post-265450

We must first and foremost be good stewards of what has been entrusted to us. If we do a good job with that, we will be entrusted with more. But if we are doing a poor job with that God will NOT entrust us with more, and will even take away what we were given first. Remember the conclusion of the parable of the talents

I do not accept that the parable of the talents in any way has applicability here except perhaps as a tangential matter.

The parable of the talents is about the earning of rewards, about multiplying abundance -- and that may be the crux of the misunderstanding of the legitimacy of and/or purpose of biblical polygyny. Polygyny isn't about multiplying abundance; it's first and foremost a matter of providing abundance to those who currently have none (or helping them escape poverty and despair). I have a visceral negative reaction any time I recognize that I'm lusting (and I'm using that word not in the inaccurate modern vernacular as being exclusively sexual but in its more proper Paulian usage as overly longing for anything) for an additional wife or, for that matter, any time I observe any man here or at a Biblical Families gathering or anywhere else introducing his 2nd or 3rd wife in a way that either implies that he's predominantly the recipient of additional blessings (no matter what blessings he's hinting at) or indicates that he's somehow demonstrated evidence that he's to be more highly revered. As for the latter, no matter what level of 'accomplishment' is indicated by having multiple wives, it's cringeworthy to puff oneself up about it, but, as for the former, no matter what level of blessing a wife is, she is always more of a burden than a blessing over the course of a marriage. I'll address in a subsequent post my thoughts about assuming that the presence of wives is consistently a reflection of whether a man has proven himself worthy in the sight of God, but I'll assert here that no man for whom his wife is more of a blessing than a burden will ever have a second simultaneous wife in the absence of the 1st wife leading the charge for a 2nd one, because, by their nature, women expect men to accept that women are more burden than blessing; in fact, for women, marriage's primary purpose is to shift her burdens onto a man -- that's part of the nature of hypergamy. If a woman perceives that she will be more of a blessing to a man than a burden, then she's going to keep looking until she finds one who will put up more with her than she has to put up with him.

This is why I so repetitively repeat that, at its core, seeking polygyny on the part of a man is predominantly an act of generosity. There is selfishness involved, but I assume with great confidence that YHWH endowed men with the selfish aspect (sex and reproduction) of what would propel them to take on additional wives so widows and orphans would be covered, because otherwise men would lack sufficient motivation to be as generous as it is to take on the responsibility of one woman, much less two or three.

 

[Keith Martin]

A man's first wife, and her children, are where he proves himself as a husband and father. Those men who do well in this first test WILL be given more responsibilities by God - but if a man cannot raise his first batch of children well but loses them before they even leave home, what on earth would make him think he could do any better with the much more difficult job of another batch that are not even blood related to him and who he is trying to get to know later in life? Pass the first test, then you can graduate to the second, harder one - fail the first without learning from your mistakes and you'll probably make a complete disaster of the second.

I categorically reject this interpretation of Scripture. This is a man-centered, New Age, self-improvement, works orientation to His Word, as if we're all just milk-driven Children of God who get stickers and M&Ms when we please our Master.

And the problem is that we elevate ourselves to apply our own idiosyncratic wish lists to how we deign to judge others in regard to whether or not they've earned one gift, blessing, accomplishment or another.

It's also the mistake that propels some people to assume they have the right to dispense advice to others due to their own self-assessment about how righteously they themselves rate in one realm or another -- as in, I'm a top-notch parent, so therefore now I'm qualified to do family counseling.

What gets lost when one applies that logic to the topic we're discussing is that, even besides the fact that we have no business judging the worthiness of others, it doesn't come close to having relevance to compare how one parents a second set of children to how one parented a first set of children -- what matters is comparing how that second set of children will be parented to either (a) how that second set of children will fare being parented by no man at all, or (b) whether a second set of children will even entirely exist (given that, in many cases, a man will have subsequent children with a widow). Failure to accurately focus on that proper comparison is evidence of a man being hypnotized into believing that his vision is inferior to promoting his 1st wife's vision, which, based on the nature of most all females, translates into "take care of me and my children only, and if you find yourself with any excess energy, then just keep improving how you take care of us."

 

[Keith Martin]

Sure the widow and orphans must be cared for by somebody. But even here there is an order of priority. Family still comes first - because who has primary responsibility to care for the widow? Her own family (1 Timothy 5:4). Her family has the primary responsibility to care for her, just as you have the primary responsibility to care for your own family. Now, if her family fail to care for her, and you have the capacity to take her on, then certainly do so - but that is still secondary to your first requirement to care for your own.

Can't escape bringing in the levirate law here.

I won't argue that the first line of charity must be within one's own family, but take care that you're not falling prey unconsciously to the anti-sexual puritan argument against polygyny, which demands that all one focus on is provision and protection.

What if, as is actually going to be the case the majority of the time, a widow's family contains no man willing and able to take on an (in most cases, additional) woman? That is, what if the family contains no man willing and able to provide the widow with due benevolence?

As far as I'm concerned, anyway, all that this argument does is displace the responsibility to someone else, in which case it comes down primarily to one 1st wife asserting that some other 1st wife should be the one to accept having to share husband resources.

This is not personal, Samuel, but I ask you to give serious consideration to contemplating and answering the following question: what man can with a straight face make this argument of you-don't-have-to-be-the-one who isn't a man under the thumb of his own 1st wife?