BigMike and wife:
I owe you an apology. On this thread I've jumped in with both feet, waxed eloquent, passionate,and possibly even obnoxious (ok,
likely) without even stopping to ask first just what you meant, or understand your heart.
This weekend, (ok, admittedly with the help of my wife and then Nathan, 2 witnesses) I've come under conviction of having thoroughly blown it with prideful, harsh postings.
I am truly sorry, hope you will forgive me, hope you're still here, and hope you"ll allow me to start over and try again.
bigmike said:
I was just kind of curious how many of you guys would see that being the patriarch of the family is more important than any other aspect of the family. That spiritual leadership in a plural relationship is more important than sex.
This is, in many ways, a tough one. When you said,"plural relationship", I will reply under the assumption that you mean, specifically "plural MARRIAGE", for if it isn't a plural marriage to which you refer, then it gets even more complicated.
Here's the thing: With sex but without godly male leadership, is each of the relationships a marriage? How about the inverse? With the godly male leadership but without sex? Is that actually a marriage?
It occurs to me that God told Adam and Eve to get busy with the "one flesh" thing BEFORE He told 'em that Adam had to rule. Also, you can get a marriage annulled for failure to ever make the beast with two backs, but not for being a lazy non-spiritual schmuck.
So, in one way, sex would seem to win. It seems critical to the very definition of the relationship as being a "marriage".
On the other hand, we come to the question of the long-term HEALTH of the relationship. To this, I would have to respond that it could limp along in some form for a very long time, perhaps even a lifetime, without sound godly male leadership -- some do -- but would we call it healthy? Doubtful. And might the lack be in part responsible for the astounding divorce rate? Likely. So Godly Biblical Patriarchy does seem vitally important as well.
Back to the first hand ... would the health of the marriages be worse or better, the longevity greater or shorter, if we removed sex from the equation? I'm sure we all agree it would be worse.
So, my own conclusion is that it is difficult to make this sort of comparison valid. Both seem to be needed. It seems to me like asking which is more important on an automobile, the steering mechanism including tires, or the engine? The answer is to go up the middle and say, "Yup! Both!"
I see an enormous need for women with children who are looking for the safety and security that can only be provided by a man who is Christ centered patriarch of his family. As I understand patriarch-ical leadership it is my job to pray over my family, protect my family, provide for my family, and love them the way Christ loves the church and is willing to die to that family. Would you open your hearts and doors to your homes to the widowed, divorced, and single mothers to love them and care for them as if they were your own second, or more wives; without getting married to them, nor indulging in any physical intimacy?
At a guess, most all of us men on this site see this same need.
In my case, I came to the study of PM without any consciousness of Patriarchy or particular consciousness of sound Godly male leadership in the home. Growing up, there was strong German male leadership, alright, along with liberal applications of a belt and God-invoking lectures. Definitely "Patriarchal" - rule by the father. I could not, however, describe it as either "sound" or "Godly". As you can imagine, my own home had struggles in this area -- I swung too far towards hands-off, though we, too, had a strongly spiritual orientation and active church involvement.
Yet my wife and I opened our home to women and children frequently. No sex. (Not that temptation didn't exist, in both directions, I later found out!) *wry grin* Some of them stayed quite a while. My cousin, a far better spiritual leader than I, had one stay for a couple of YEARS. But ultimately, each left. While it was and is nice to do, they were not permanent relationships, and I would not characterize them as plural relationships. Put another way, ...
We provided a bus stop shelter for their hearts, not a home. For the latter to have occurred would have, IMO, required marriage with ALL that entails (though some legal details would have to be handled differently, but that's a separate subject). That isn't to disparage the former, nor call it worthless. A bus stop shelter in a storm is a very good thing! But I do believe it is less than what is ultimately needed. See my impassioned earlier posts about belonging.
Obviously before your mate became your wife she was first your sister in the Lord, (as these women are today, they are my sisters) then she became your wife and you produced offspring from that union of that love. If you opened your doors to widowed, divorced, and single mothers with children recognizing that she would be your sister in the Lord, adopting the children as your own, and raising them in the admiration and knowledge of our Savior Jesus. Would that be nobler and more pleasing to our Lord?
As a very short term thing, a bus stop shelter in the storm, of course! But it sounds to me as though you are thinking in longer terms -- "adopting them" and "raising them".
Let me begin to answer by asking a question in return: What if you were a single man? Would you recommend that it would be nobler and more pleasing to the Lord to take in one or more women and their children, adopt the children, raise them in the Lord, behave to all outward appearances as a family, and yet never marry their mother(s)? Or would we all start sputtering about the need to avoid the appearance of evil? If the latter, why would it be any different in a home where one marriage already existed and was being actively "enjoyed"?
Going one step further, what would the feelings of such a woman be? She's sort of in limbo now. Might she think something along the lines of, "It is better to marry than to burn, and I am married, sorta, but I'm still BURNING! What's more, SHE is the lucky recipient of any sexual energy generated between myself and HIM! This isn't RIGHT!" Fallow ground for resentment to grow!
IMO, while it SOUNDS very noble, an actual attempt to do so would end badly. Or else in bed anyway. Possibly or probably with lots of community gossip along the way. Right or wrong, based on my own experience, that's my opinion.
Finally, again IMO, I think God is well pleased when a man and woman in a covenant relationship get their freak on. He did, after all, make so many of us with an urge to do so, right?
Nowhere in scripture do *I* find any sense of God having a problem with folks entering into covenant relationships, even if a man already has one. Where I find God getting unhappy is when those covenant relationships, mono or poly, get broken!
)