• 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.

Statement of Focus for Biblical Families

nathan

nathan

Administrator
Staff member
Real Person
Male
Statement of Focus for Biblical Families

Every so often in any organization it becomes necessary to consider where you are, how you got there, and if a course correction of any magnitude is necessary. That’s where Biblical Families is right now. After prayer and deliberation, we think some changes are needed, and that the result will better serve the core mission God has given us: the support of Biblical Patriarchal families, including those families with more than one wife. Note the emphasis on “patriarchal” – while we believe that God may call a man to zero, one, or more wives, we feel certain that all His earthly sons are called to live as Men who lead and love following His own example – and this is patriarchy. We think the biggest battle we face is not over plural marriage but over the near-complete destruction of Biblical patriarchy, both in Western culture, and in the vast majority of the church. We are aware this focus is likely to make us even more of a target than plural marriage does.

We also want to point out what our focus is NOT: it is not on any particular theological position beyond the Gospel, including debate thereof. While we respect, and even enjoy, that we have folks who participate at Biblical Families from many backgrounds and traditions, it’s important that these differences do not become divisive to the core purpose God has given us: Patriarchal Biblical families and marriage. Lately, it’s become more evident that debate of these differences has become a distraction to our online forum. We have heard from more than a few folks who have left the forum (over the years and recently) over ongoing debates, particularly debates between those brothers who feel led to some form of Torah Observance / Hebrew Roots and those who do not. This is a distraction from our purpose, and when people are leaving over this, it’s time to make a correction. It is now our intention to put an end to these debates. Personal attacks and ridicule are out-of-bounds as well. This means a change in moderation goals, and some new moderators joining the team, as Samuel cannot be expected to keep an eye on everything that is posted. We would ask that those who participate regularly help in this regard: if you see anything that you think is potentially problematic, use the Report button on a post, just to highlight it (this is only visible to moderators, and they will have the final decision on what happens). Moderation is not a strict set of rules, and will necessarily evolve in practice. If not having this outlet for debate at Biblical Families is disappointing to you, we can point you to other online forums where you can discuss/debate any particular theological issue. We can’t keep our focus and be all things to all people.

We restate that our bond at Biblical Families is the bond of brotherhood in the saving grace of the Gospel of Jesus/Yeshua. We want to be clear that all those who consider themselves brothers and sisters in the Gospel are welcome to participate at Biblical Families, both online and at retreats, and in any community discussion. We’d ask you to understand the major purpose for the online forums: to be a place of learning and growth for those who God is calling to live patriarchally or to plural marriage. It is not for anyone to promote their specific theological distinctives.

Finding the line between what is OK and what is not, is something the moderators will have to do, and will need some grace for – thank you for extending it to them, just as the Father has extended it to all of us.

------------------------------

Not coincidently, we are happy to announce that 2 new moderators are joining the team to help in this mission. The first is not ‘new’ at all, and we are happy to have Zec (@The Revolting Man) joining to help out, as well Lance (@ABlessedMan). Both gentlemen will bring their unique point-of-view to the team, and we believe the forum will benefit from this. We want to take this opportunity to also thank our chief moderator of many years, Samuel (@FollowingHim), for his often single-handed effort in keeping the BF forum on-track. The forum as a community would be a much less valuable place without his ongoing time and attention.

Biblical Families Board and Staff
 
Last edited:
@nathan

Hi Nathan,

I believe you know me very well at this point so when I say that I 100% support what you've said here you know I mean it! Thank you for your leadership and thank you for raising up good men to help you with the task!

With much respect,

Megan
 
@nathan Your forum, your choice. I've got an opinion, but you don't need it. You've already set your course, and you'll find out where it leads soon enough. Just have one question.
nathan said:
We also want to point out what our focus is NOT: it is not on any particular theological position beyond the Gospel, including debate thereof.
Click to expand...
nathan said:
particularly debates between those brothers who feel led to some form of Torah Observance / Hebrew Roots
Click to expand...
What is the Gospel? I've never heard that word used in reference to the whole Bible, but only certain parts, particularly associated with the New Testament. Are you intending to say that here we are not to use the Old Testament, and especially not the portions containing the Torah, to support the position of patriarchy and it's subsets? To be frank, I've been waiting for one of the Hebrew Roots guys to say you can't have a Biblical supporting position on patriarchy and especially polygyny, divorce, and the definition of marriage without admitting to following the Torah at least in part, and I would have to agree with them. So, is this not at all what you meant, or is it exactly what you meant?
 
@NVIII, good question.

The purpose of this forum is to help people with their marriages. As possibly the only major online ministry catering for Christian polygamy in the entire world, we must welcome people from all denominations of Christianity and make them feel welcome, so they can feel comfortable seeking marital advice here.

Unfortunately, repeated debates over the specific theological differences between Torah-keeping and non-Torah-keeping believers ruin that welcoming atmosphere. Repeated debates over the differences between any denominations would do that. If everyone kept repeatedly arguing over infant baptism vs adult baptism and claiming those who did it "wrong" were potentially in sin, we would have the exact same problem. This is not about Torah. It is about unity and focus.

These debates ruin the atmosphere so much that they turn away many participants in this forum, from both sides - while the non-Torah-keeping side appears dominant in the debates, Torah keepers leave over it, and while the Torah-keeping side appears dominant non-Torah-keepers leave over it. Many people have left over this over the years, with another batch leaving very recently. This whole argument is a ball-and-chain constantly holding this ministry back from growing as a marriage ministry.

Obviously, we must use the Old Testament, particularly Torah, to support not only patriarchy and polygyny but much of Christian theology. We will all cite Torah when discussing marriage. That is completely fine and not restricted in any way. That is our core purpose.

But debates over pork and Sabbath are not, and are seriously hampering our core purpose. For years we have tried to keep these debates to a "reasonable" level, whatever that is. We've tried confining them to particular areas of the forum, tried having various rules about them, tried having both active moderation and more laid-back policies. Nothing works, the issue continues to be a source of division. So enough is enough.

This is simply no longer the place for that particular debate. People holding both viewpoints are welcome here, while nobody is welcome to try and convert everyone to their viewpoint. We have another focus.

You are still most welcome to have these discussions with each other in private messaging, in person at retreats, or in any other setting. They are just no longer going to drag down the public ministry of the forum.
 
NVIII said:
Are you intending to say that here we are not to use the Old Testament, and especially not the portions containing the Torah, to support the position of patriarchy and it's subsets?
Click to expand...

Obviously we are not saying that, and I can’t imagine how you’d even infer that from the statement. I’d refer you to 2 Tim 3:16: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” Samuel covered what we are saying well above. The point about the Gospel is that it is our common ground, which we need to have. What is the Gospel?: that Christ died for our sins, and only by His work at the Cross are we saved. And the whole of scripture does indeed point to this.
 
Last edited:
nathan said:
Obviously we are not saying that, and I can’t imagine how you’d even infer that from the statement. I’d refer you 2 Tim 3:16: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” Samuel covered what we are saying well above. The point about the Gospel is that it is our common ground, which we need to have. What is the Gospel?: that Christ died for our sins, and only by His work at the Cross are we saved. And the whole of scripture does indeed point to this.
Click to expand...
Awesome. Thanks for clarifying.
 
I'm late to the party (as usual). I hesitate to write, but I do want to thank Nathan, Andrew and company for their good will and encouragement. I'm honored to be included with Samuel and Zec. I am grateful for Nathan's leadership in resettling our aim and to NVIII for clarifying the purpose and direction. There are very few chapters in the NT that exist without the underpinning of Tanakh. Likewise, there are very few chapters in Tanakh that do not blossom in the light of the Gospel, Epistles, and NT wisdom and prophetic writings. I don't think that the structural similarity is accidental.
There is one challenge that I would like to bring up, that I hope that more people on the forum will consider. Participation on the site, in so far as it is obedient to the LORD, is an engagement between not only people but followers of the LORD. In our culture, on-line activities are sometimes toxic, lawless, and dehumanizing. They are selfish. It is an opportunity to get a dopamine rush from receiving accolades from others, or it is the cathartic surge of releasing pent up discouragements. Similar to being stuck in traffic, we can act in ways toward others in the anonymity of our cars as we would never face to face. It should not be so among us.
The forum has been a benefit to me because I have discovered people with faces and stories and struggles like mine. I use PM far more than I use the threads, because some questions and challenges are best said in private. We men, especially, are proud and not necessarily in a bad way. Respect is a profound way of showing love. Causing a brother to lose face, or to openly give offense publicly, is hard to square with the Gospel. If we believe a brother is in sin or even error, then best to approach him via a PM. As usual, the LORD's instruction (Prov 15:1; 25:15, the Golden Rule, and Matt 18, etc. ) is the best practice.

Again, many thanks and may the LORD bless you
 
I haven't commented here, yet. Been there, done that. Nuthin' new under the sun. Etc. However:

FollowingHim said:
Obviously, we must use the Old Testament, particularly Torah, to support not only patriarchy and polygyny but much of Christian theology. We will all cite Torah when discussing marriage. That is completely fine and not restricted in any way. That is our core purpose.

But debates over pork and Sabbath are not, and are seriously hampering our core purpose. For years we have tried to keep these debates to a "reasonable" level, whatever that is. We've tried confining them to particular areas of the forum, tried having various rules about them, tried having both active moderation and more laid-back policies. Nothing works, the issue continues to be a source of division. So enough is enough.
Click to expand...
What He actually WROTE about marriage - as every single person who has ever logged in here knows - is a "source of division."

Either GET USED to IT - suck it up - or don't even THINK about taking more than one wife.

IF we can't learn to tell the Truth about His Word - ALL of it, as Written - you won't have the backbone to deal with the attacks that - as we have been warned - WILL come to those who honor His Word.

Sorry if that 'offends' folks. But I got used to it, years ago, when I realized that if I intended to honor more than one wife, I'd better learn to honor YHVH first. And that means not only speaking His Truth, "boldly," as we are told to, but being able "in season and out" to give an account for WHY we believe, and WALK, as He has taught us.

"As for me and my house," I've learned that "fruit" matters more than quoting Scripture out-of-context. IOW - if I can't answer questions like, 'OK - why do you PICK AND CHOOSE from His Word?' I'm not a good and faithful servant, much less husband deserving of the title.
 
Mark C said:
I haven't commented here, yet. Been there, done that. Nuthin' new under the sun. Etc. However:


What He actually WROTE about marriage - as every single person who has ever logged in here knows - is a "source of division."

Either GET USED to IT - suck it up - or don't even THINK about taking more than one wife.

IF we can't learn to tell the Truth about His Word - ALL of it, as Written - you won't have the backbone to deal with the attacks that - as we have been warned - WILL come to those who honor His Word.

Sorry if that 'offends' folks. But I got used to it, years ago, when I realized that if I intended to honor more than one wife, I'd better learn to honor YHVH first. And that means not only speaking His Truth, "boldly," as we are told to, but being able "in season and out" to give an account for WHY we believe, and WALK, as He has taught us.

"As for me and my house," I've learned that "fruit" matters more than quoting Scripture out-of-context. IOW - if I can't answer questions like, 'OK - why do you PICK AND CHOOSE from His Word?' I'm not a good and faithful servant, much less husband deserving of the title.
Click to expand...
There is a time and a place for everything.

What the Bible says about marriage is a source of division, as you say, and that is something we have to confront head-on. Enough of us have been booted from churches over this to be well aware of how divisive it is. We are dealing with a matter that is inherently controversial and a potential source of enough debates as it is.

Debating other areas of theology is also a worthy thing to do - but the public forum on this site is not the place for every debate on every topic, because those debates result in an atmosphere that is not conducive to marriage ministry. We've got enough division already just talking about marriage, we don't need to add more off-topic divisiveness.

I think we both know each other well enough by now that we can probably just accept that we're both going to disagree at least in part on this @Mark C, and are not going to change each other's minds. I do respect the consistency and fervour of your position. But there is a time and a place for preaching this with unrestricted passion (for instance you have made the Come Out Of Her My People podcast precisely for this purpose). And there is a time and a place to let it go.

I have absolutely no problem with someone saying something like "If you're going to take the Torah commands on marriage literally, why stop there? In my personal opinion the implications of this go very deep, and all of Torah should be kept. PM me if you want to discuss that further though as it's off topic for this site." Such a post will not be deleted, because it is not starting a debate on the forum. The discussion is an important one to have, and we are not stopping people from having it. We are just placing some boundaries on where that discussion occurs, to ensure it does not hamper the core goals of the ministry.
 
Mark C said:
I haven't commented here, yet. Been there, done that. Nuthin' new under the sun. Etc. However:


What He actually WROTE about marriage - as every single person who has ever logged in here knows - is a "source of division."

Either GET USED to IT - suck it up - or don't even THINK about taking more than one wife.

IF we can't learn to tell the Truth about His Word - ALL of it, as Written - you won't have the backbone to deal with the attacks that - as we have been warned - WILL come to those who honor His Word.

Sorry if that 'offends' folks. But I got used to it, years ago, when I realized that if I intended to honor more than one wife, I'd better learn to honor YHVH first. And that means not only speaking His Truth, "boldly," as we are told to, but being able "in season and out" to give an account for WHY we believe, and WALK, as He has taught us.

"As for me and my house," I've learned that "fruit" matters more than quoting Scripture out-of-context. IOW - if I can't answer questions like, 'OK - why do you PICK AND CHOOSE from His Word?' I'm not a good and faithful servant, much less husband deserving of the title.
Click to expand...
This isn’t true Mark. This forum was started by non-Torah keepers who have weathered the storms of polygyny for many years very successfully. The Torah keepers were actually late to the party.

At this point we’re about evenly split between practicing families who are Torah and those who aren’t. In fact the advantage maybe on the side of the non-Torah keepers at this point.

So this change shouldn’t be a burden to anyone. @PeteR has some excellent Torah resources and forums if anyone is need of stimulation in that direction.
 
@Mark C I think they want us to 1.) cross swords in private, not all over their pages in ways that frighten the timid ones, and 2.) stay on topic to the ministry. What I take away from it is this is to be a sanctuary of milktoast and babysteps, which already sounds like I'm being offensive, but those are essentially Paul's words. I've seen the attempts made in the past to cordon off the mature(?) areas, and I guess they are right that it never stays contained.

Maybe some more clarity could be used here @nathan. It's probably obvious again and unimaginable how I might infer that. Some of us need a little more help, is all I can say.

The problem that I see with censoring ourselves in order to be more welcoming (and this may be partly what you were saying, too, Mark) is that the chief topic here is no place for weak faith nor mind. A weak man needs to be studying salvation, not patriarchy or polygyny. The risk of  actual damage to our weaker brothers is in giving an avenue for this graduated theology to sprout in his thin soil only to be destroyed by trials later and this fall cause a fissure that reaches to his faith in Christ and completely destroys him. Much better in that sense for the timid and insincere to either face the music and grow by tough love or turn themselves and walk away from the harsh environment than to be tricked by a false sense of security here. Much like building a house on sand if there is no digging down to the rock. I consider those who left to have been weeded out and spared a greater fall. Paul fed people milk, but it was with the intent to grow them toward meat. What this thread seems to be suggesting (ordering?) is that we never graduate.

The problem I see with staying on topic is that it is probably impossible to discuss this sort of topic without those related and loop-back questions coming up. I get what you're saying, @FollowingHim, but there's so much that is so deeply intertwined. You may think the Sabbath and pork have nothing to do with patriarchy and polygyny, but aren't they all illustrations in earth given us by the same Father to paint parts of a whole image? If you refuse to allow the conversation to go where it needs to go in order to complete the picture, the discerning will smell a rat and turn away; people like @Keith Martin. The shallow and fake won't care and will stay because it is comfortable and easy (and fun...this topic does share space with new-age movements and sexual kinks). Those with rebellion in their hearts will stay because it doesn't prick their conscience. I know some of the people you are lamenting about their walking away and blaming us...and the ones I know of either had rebellion in their hearts or were insincere and faithless. The heat they felt here exposed what was under their surface, and they needed that.

I have another question. This one for @ABlessedMan. If a statement is made publicly, shouldn't it be allowed to face public scrutiny and rebuttal? I understand taking someone to the side when the error was hidden or could be covered up. There's no need to expose what was hidden, but if it's already out there for all to see, and we only keep our contests hidden, won't the public impression be that the erroneous statement or questionable opinion stands without rebuttal? Is this a position of grace or of cowardice? I've been publicly slapped about on this site a few times, and sometimes it was deserved, and other times I hit back. Sometimes when I hit back people seemed to get offended that I would have the gall to speak back to such a revered member. I've lost the popularity contest, but never has my conscience been clearer.

Adding all this up, it seems to me what y'all really want is an approved panel of speakers (ministers?) and everybody else can submit questions to an inbox or keep quiet and learn. It actually occurred to me weeks ago that this would probably solve all the problems. It would match pretty well to what you seem to be striving for here. Might be worth considering. I mean, if you just took away my ability to post publicly, there goes one thorn in your side. Imagine if you did that to several others here as well. There's a little bit of sarcasm in what I'm saying, but not that much. It really might work. Or if you took your moderating team and formed them into a post approval board instead. No more free-for-all. And when they're not approving posts they can be going back and deleting posts from the past that were too harsh or inconvenient.

There's no pursuit of truth in that, is there? No liberty. Only fear. (And cult status.) If this seems to be mocking, I suggest you be willing to call a spade a spade, look in the mirror, and ask yourself if that's really what you mean to create.

My biggest problem with all of this is that it censors people like @Mark C, @JudahYAHites, @StudentofHim, and so on. Even @PeteR, although I guess he has done a good enough job of behaving. Now @The Revolting Man might even become domesticated, and that's a tragedy of immeasurable proportions. Even though I find myself in disagreement with them a lot of the time, I don't want them silenced. These new rules aren't really designed to affect me, but they would affect them a great deal. Possibly to the point that they leave. So what have you really gained? I say let them speak freely and even boldly. Iron sharpens iron, and those who study the Torah religiously have so much to offer here that will aid your understanding, no matter how sharp you think you already are. I'm not afraid to argue with anyone, not pagans, not Muslims, and not even Jews. Are you? Is an echo chamber what you want? Are you not salt and light? Was this change caused by people leaving or by the particular type of people who left? Is it an honest answer or an emotional one?
 
@NVIII, the problem with your entire perspective is that you are assuming that Torah-keeping is the fundamental truth underlying polygamy, and it is impossible to rationally understand this from any other perspective. You then state that this new approach censors a list of names of people who happen to agree with you (ignoring that it also censors those who would debate them). You are assuming you are right and everyone must agree with you to properly understand marriage.

Many people who believe polygamy is acceptable come to this understanding from a position of standard historically Christian theology. Those people do not see Torah-keeping as foundational to marriage, and in fact would disagree strongly. Such people frequently argue that we must have a grace-based rather than law-based understanding of our relationship to God in order to properly understand our relationship with our wives. And such people feel censored and pushed out when the forum is dominated by Torah keepers. It is people from this camp who have been leaving recently.

Forget which camp is right or wrong - obviously you fervently believe you are right, and vice versa. I'm not debating that. But I am pointing out that it is not necessary to believe one perspective of Torah to form a view of marriage that feels internally consistent and correct to the person believing it.

The greater context for us is that the vast majority of Christians fall into camp 2. Every single standard denomination, in all three major branches of Christianity (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox). The only people who fall into camp 1, even if they are correct, form a tiny fraction of the Body of Christ.

If we are to help people with their marriages, the vast majority of people needing our help, based on pure statistics, fall into camp 2. If we turn them away at the very beginning, and only cater for camp 1, we cannot fulfil our core purpose and will just become a tiny little niche in a little corner of the Body.

The staff of this ministry feel a much greater calling than that, and we must fulfil the great mission that we feel God has set in front of us.
 
FollowingHim said:
@NVIII, the problem with your entire perspective is that you are assuming that Torah-keeping is the fundamental truth underlying polygamy
Click to expand...
Let me stop you right there and rebuke a few things before there's any piling on. No, I do not believe this. And it's not what I said. But I do believe the Torah is excellent and even essential for understanding our nature and purpose and many other images God painted for us in earth, including to a great degree patriarchy. The Torah, to my limited understanding, is mostly mute about polygyny.
FollowingHim said:
You then state that this new approach censors a list of names of people who happen to agree with you
Click to expand...
Let me fix that for you: "You then stated a list of names of people who you knew you had the most disagreement with, especially on the subject of the Torah." This was deliberate for the sake of emphasizing my point in that paragraph. But I should have added your name.
FollowingHim said:
You are assuming you are right and everyone must agree with you to properly understand marriage.
Click to expand...
No. But YOU have been assuming a lot. I WANT to be challenged.
FollowingHim said:
Many people who believe polygamy is acceptable come to this understanding from a position of standard historically Christian theology.
Click to expand...
Which has it's basis in what?
FollowingHim said:
will just become a tiny little niche in a little corner of the Body.
Click to expand...
By nature of your thesis you will forever be a tiny little niche, unless you conform to the image of man, unless you civilize yourself and stick to palatable doctines suitable to the modern sensitivities. Adopting egalitarianism and complementarianism would suit that purpose well.

When my eyes were opened many years ago and I began searching for truth to rebuild my worldview, this forum was a source of inspiration and revelation for me. And, as I recall, back in those days, no punches were being held. But, I was hungry, I had a zeal, and I ate it all up and searched for more, as I still do. As long as you remain in the truth, you shouldn't be afraid of being caustic to people. It says more about them than you. But, if you water down your message, if you sacrifice truth for soft feelings, your popularity should disgust you.
 
NVIII said:
Let me fix that for you: "You then stated a list of names of people who you knew you had the most disagreement with, especially on the subject of the Torah." This was deliberate for the sake of emphasizing my point in that paragraph. But I should have added your name.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I did completely miss your point there and may have been making a false assumption in my responses to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top