• 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.

Polygyny Might be OK but it Cuts Off Fellowship

Ephraim

Ephraim

Member
Real Person
Male
This was the argument of a pastor friend of mine recently. We have discussed this topic a few times over the last couple of years. After getting him to finally study the matter he now comes at me from this angle, "polygyny might be ok but it cuts off fellowship". He is right that it tends to cut off fellowship but his conclusion is that because it cuts off fellowship it should not be done.

At least we are past the whole 'its a sin conversation' and he now basically admits that it is not sinful. Yet he comes up with this. :roll:
 
Sounds like you might be making progress. Also sounds like the rest of the world's believers should let God define sin, and quit breaking fellowship with people, over something God doesn't have a problem with.
But then, that would be too easy. :)
Something that could be pointed out, is that light and darkness are not really to have fellowship with each other, and if they are redefining biblical marriage as sin, they are most certainly adding to the word. The break in fellowship is natural then, and they must come back to the truth, and into the light, for fellowship to be restored.
Too bad they think, like so many unbelievers, that doing things God's way is going to be hard...or at least harder then doing it their way. I mean, people can't be happy living like that. All that living for God must get old, and wouldn't be any fun, right?
And you would think that they were each being asked to live it themselves, rather then just let others, and that it would be a fate worse then death! LOL
You have to be willing to see it His way, before he can show it to you. Only then do people really see the light. And it's no minor miracle when people do.

But I'm just a preachin' to the choir here. :D
 
But they still never see that the break in fellowship is on THEIR part, not ours! We WANT the fellowship, they refuse to extend it!!

Doc
 
Mat 10:21-22 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against [their] parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Luk 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

truth does not create peace and safety.
 
I think in this guy’s case he is more afraid of what other people think, it is fear of man. He thinks that because others would stumble with it that it should be avoided. He expresses that some brothers would be jealous of others, some brothers would have less of a chance at getting married, etc. He also thinks it looks bad to those outside the church, quoting bad examples of fundamental Mormons and Muslims. Basically excuses. I disagree with him of course. I think he is sort of wrestling with it and needs prayer.
 
I think people like this ‘pastor’ need to wake up. Man to woman ratios especially in the church are very unequal. Maybe I should share some of that info next time we talk. His own church is a fine example, the amount of women there are almost double that of the men who attend. Surely no brother is at a disadvantage but the sisters obviously are. So many single women or single mothers whose only opportunity seems to be to lower their standards and date an unbeliever and hope she can convert him.

Any other suggestions or angles to share?
 
Speaking from my former life as a minister in a major denomination, it is difficult for a pastor of a church to step out and publicly endorse a concept such as this for fear of backlash from his local board, his local congregation, or even his denomination. Even the pastor of an independent church deals with the issue of losing families (and thus, finances).

Not making excuses for the guy, just letting you know what pressures are on him, whether or not he recognizes the truth of plural marriage or not.

Doc
 
Good points Doc, and as a minister myself I'm need to be mindful of such things. While at the same time not driving a wedge in our friendship. I treading very carefully here as I'm also one of a handful of contributors to the publications of the denomination. I'm just very excited to see his eyes beginning to open and am trying to think through how help that continue.
 
Sounds like you've really got him thinking. His concerns are obviously real, as Doc has pointed out, but I fully agree that he's looking at it from completely the wrong end. He's basically saying "people dislike it, so we've got to dislike it just like everyone else, even if it's actually ok - disliking it is the fashionable thing these days you know". Great theology that...

Don't push him too hard, you're nearly there. He's certainly seen the light, he's just scared of the implications of it so he's trying to hide from it.
 
Ephraim said:
His own church is a fine example, the amount of women there are almost double that of the men who attend. Surely no brother is at a disadvantage but the sisters obviously are.
Click to expand...
our Creator decided that it was not good for Adam to be alone. what did He do about it?
create a friend?
create a body of believers?
brothers or sisters?

no, He created someone to be one with him. a marriage partner. a helpmeet.
why do we not recognize this today?
would not our Creator look at the single women in our churches and say that it is not good for them to be alone? tradition has excluded them from His provision.
do they not have rights?
 
Steve

We've got to be careful to not apply things to women that were actually said about men. God said it was not good for the man to be alone. Did he ever say it was not good for the woman to be alone? Sounds logical, but I don't think it's actually stated, best not to jump to conclusions.

I just note that in your last post you take a verse that applies to men, discuss it about men, then apply it to women at the end without explanation. This is exactly what the monogamy-only crowd do when they take verses about adultery, discuss how adultery is a sin, then apply it to men taking multiple wives without explanation. Both are a similar leap in logic.

I obviously agree with you that polygamy would give these women more options for support, I'm just trying to find and fix any weak points in our arguments before someone else does.
 
I appreciate caution in application of scripture, and it is true God did not say that about women. He did however MAKE woman FOR man, and the way I see it that means she is less equipped for a life on her own then he is, being unable to fill the measure of her creation without a man and/or family. He was made for his maker, she was made for him, to fill his needs.
While I know many women who are happy while single, and serve the lord with gladness, I think they feel that something is missing until they have a family to minister to as well.

I'm sure plenty of people see this differently, and I'm not trying to start a war between libbers and old fashioned housewives...just expressing my opinion here.
 
Joleneakamama said:
I appreciate caution in application of scripture, and it is true God did not say that about women. He did however MAKE woman FOR man, and the way I see it that means she is less equipped for a life on her own then he is, being unable to fill the measure of her creation without a man and/or family. He was made for his maker, she was made for him, to fill his needs.
While I know many women who are happy while single, and serve the lord with gladness, I think they feel that something is missing until they have a family to minister to as well.

I'm sure plenty of people see this differently, and I'm not trying to start a war between libbers and old fashioned housewives...just expressing my opinion here.
Click to expand...
hey girl, that was awesome!

to restate part of it a little differently;
if it was not good for adam to be alone, i feel that it is even less good that a woman be alone.
the closest thing to biblical proof that i would have is in Is. 4. what reason did the 7 women give the man? to take away our reproach (shame). at present women do not realize that it is a reproach to themselves to stand before their Creator and state that they need a man like a fish needs a bicycle. in that day they will understand and embrace His design.

do men need their other halves just as much? yes, yes, a thousand times, yes! and i think that it is a reproach to us to believe that we do not.

thanx for holding my feet to the fire and making me explain my position, i sometimes forget. and if you see any weakness in my position, fire away! that is what this board if for, for all of us to study our positions as deeply as they need to be studied until they come out as pure gold.
 
Well stated Joleneakamama. That is an excellent explanation, certainly it would offend a load of feminists but the same goes for a lot of the stuff we discuss here, so don't worry about that!
 
FollowingHim said:
Well stated Joleneakamama. That is an excellent explanation, certainly it would offend a load of feminists but the same goes for a lot of the stuff we discuss here, so don't worry about that!
Click to expand...

I am a feminist and I am not offended, people can believe what they want as long as it isn't a view point forced upon me (which it isn't) I don't care at all.

B
 
Well the sad part is on the OP it is true. But whose fault is it really? If it is socially unacceptable and not sinful, then it would be more the people who fellowship that turned their backs. If not for this then it would be something else (I have seen them do it). I once questioned something the pastor said at a church after service and I was asked not to come back because he couldn't back what he had said. So like I say if it isn't for this it would be something else when you disrupt the heard, you always take that chance. Though I have found for every person I lost for being me in my life two more have come in their place. Those people my friend are the ones who have been there no matter what!
 
FollowingHim said:
We've got to be careful to not apply things to women that were actually said about men. God said it was not good for the man to be alone. Did he ever say it was not good for the woman to be alone? Sounds logical, but I don't think it's actually stated, best not to jump to conclusions.
Click to expand...

The rabbis have held, correctly I think, that this God pronouncement was made BEFORE Eve was taken out of Adam. Therefore, at the time, he carried all of mankind within himself. It is therefore properly understood as a pronouncement that it is not good for members of mankind to be alone -- women included.

Also, that God took a personal interest and involved Himself in the situation. This is further evidenced in Ps 68:6, "God sets the lonely in families." That is NOT a gender specific pronouncement.

As to the OP, it occurs to me that a more correct wording might be that Polygyny ALTERS fellowship. It seems that you lose some, gain others.
 
FollowingHim said:
Steve

We've got to be careful to not apply things to women that were actually said about men. God said it was not good for the man to be alone. Did he ever say it was not good for the woman to be alone? Sounds logical, but I don't think it's actually stated, best not to jump to conclusions.

.
Click to expand...

Good point. I would also point out that there should never need to be a verse that applies this to women.

there are basically 3 types of women. married , unmarried (virgins and divorced), and widows. widows are broken up in 2 groups 60 and older and under 60.

I think that women should never be alone if churches and men take on their Godly duty to women.

Wives should be fulfilling the vision of their husband.

Daughters should be fulfilling the vision of their father instead of chasing a career, in preparation of doing this for their future husband.

Widows over 60 should be fulfilling the ministry of the church. widowd under 60 should return to the covering of the oldest living male in her family until she remarries.(see Pauls instruction on widows)

This is easier said than done today because churches care more about their marble floor s and gymnasiums, and men keeping up with the Jones chasing the American dream, Than they do doing their duty to women.

(My first post in a couple of years, since my excommunication from my church for having 2 wives)
 
RGK:

Succinct and very clearly stated. If only the churches/synagogues saw these simple truths. Thank you for distilling a complex issue into a few very short sentences. Wish I had that gift, as I tend to be verbose.
 
RGK, I wish you would post more often if this is what we are to expect from you. You took the words out of my mouth, and I add that my wife understands her role if the Lord should take me home to glory and she is left here with our children. Our sons will stay home and labor toward my vision until such time as they desire and are prepared for marriage. I feel that is not a set age, but a maturity level for this young man to be ready for marriage (though many parents may indeed hold back too long on this). Our daughters will indeed be helpers at home until such time as they marry and taken on the role of wife and hopefully one day mothers also, Lord willing.

We have an uphill battle in this practical outworking of Biblical patriarchy, and surely our society isn't going to change in the right direction too quickly. I have 3 sons (16, 2, and 5 months) and 2 daughters (9 and 5) so I have a few years to labor, with my wife helping immensely, to prepare our children to be faithful and well equipped servants of our King, no matter what He may call them to do. I really need some sleep, though, so off to bed I go!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top