Western Missionary in Polygamous Culture Dilemma

[rockfox]

It amazes me how reformed theologians will hold to a very strict hermetic on everything except biblical marriage. If one follow’s the same hermeneutical method that they use for everything else, the only conclusion is that plural marriages are blessed by God. But, somehow it just doesn’t compute.

I'm not sure that's true of all of them. There were some statements that led me to believe possibly some of the contemporary ones (Rushdoony? I don't remember for sure) were aware and supportive of polygamy but not open about it. Could be wrong though.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm not sure that's true of all of them. There were some statements that led me to believe possibly some of the contemporary ones (Rushdoony? I don't remember for sure) were aware and supportive of polygamy but not open about it. Could be wrong though.

I seem to remember something about R.C. Sproul Sr. deciding poly was biblical near the end of his ministry too.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I'm not sure that's true of all of them. There were some statements that led me to believe possibly some of the contemporary ones (Rushdoony? I don't remember for sure) were aware and supportive of polygamy but not open about it. Could be wrong though.

Is Rushdoony someone’s name? I guess I’m not familiar the more contemporary reformed guys.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I seem to remember something about R.C. Sproul Sr. deciding poly was biblical near the end of his ministry too.

It would be handy to have documentation of that to be able to show reformed folks when debating on the subject. Do you remember where you may have heard about that? I’m sure folks would have tried to bury that.

 

[PeteR]

Is Rushdoony someone’s name? I guess I’m not familiar the more contemporary reformed guys.

Rousas J. Rushdoony is the author of The Institutes of Biblical Law, a significant work worthy of exploration. He indeed admits and even defends the 'seeming tolerance of polygamy' and the 'total intolerance of adultery. Tom Shipley, in Man and Woman in Biblical Law , has an extended interaction with Rushdoony's position in Article #43. There is much more, but if you have that book on your shelf you can get a pretty quick overview of his position on poly.

 

[Bartato]

Rousas J. Rushdoony is the author of The Institutes of Biblical Law, a significant work worthy of exploration. He indeed admits and even defends the 'seeming tolerance of polygamy' and the 'total intolerance of adultery. Tom Shipley, in Man and Woman in Biblical Law , has an extended interaction with Rushdoony's position in Article #43. There is much more, but if you have that book on your shelf you can get a pretty quick overview of his position on poly.

Shipley's book is excellent. Anyone who hasn't read it should consider doing so.

I'm somewhat familiar with Rushdoony, but haven't read his work. I consider him to be more in the "Theonomy" subsphere of "Reformed Theology", and I really haven't delved into theonomy.

 

[Bartato]

It would be handy to have documentation of that to be able to show reformed folks when debating on the subject. Do you remember where you may have heard about that? I’m sure folks would have tried to bury that.

I'd also really love to see that.

I do remember something from Sproul (toward the end) on the subject of head coverings for women. He seemed to agree with head coverings.

That is also a very unpopular view among modern Christians, and is additionally connected to the issue of patriarchy.

Still, polygyny is VASTLY more culturally offensive, and unpopular than head covering!

 

[Bartato]

It would be handy to have documentation of that to be able to show reformed folks when debating on the subject. Do you remember where you may have heard about that? I’m sure folks would have tried to bury that.

I was still fairly impressed that Sproul had the guts to address head covering.

 

[Bartato]

Any big name theologian or pastor who speaks the truth about Biblical marriage (patriarchal and can include polygyny) is almost guaranteed to be totally destroyed by the "Evangelical Industrial Complex" (and also receive the commendation of Jesus Christ).

Look at Martin Madan. He should be as well known as George Whitfield, John Wesley, or Jonathan Edwards, but isn't, and we all know why.

 

[Bartato]

I love John Piper, and have learned a ton from him. Still, he is horribly wrong on polygyny (and more importantly patriarchy) and really ought to know better.

He is badly wrong on a few other issues too.

I still owe a debt to people like him and Grudem. Their "complementarian" view on gender helped me escape from egalitarian ideas, and move towards the Biblical doctrine of patriarchy.

More importantly Piper helped me understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I'll always be grateful for that, and yet I'm simultaneously irritated with him (and other big name guys) for what seems like willful and arrogant ignorance regarding polygyny and patriarchy (and the promotion of error in that regard).

Are they blinded by their Boomer upbringing?

Most of them have also been badly wrong on COVID (respect for Macarthur on the COVID front).

 

[frederick]

I was still fairly impressed that Sproul had the guts to address head covering.

I was encouraged that RC changed his thinking (and teaching) on Creation in his latter years, becoming more consistent with what is written in the Bible, but I haven't seen anything on a change in this thinking and teaching against polygamy/polygyny. References would be much appreciated if anyone has anything.

 

[elkanahtyler]

"When a Polygamist Is Converted What Should He Do About His Marriages?"

The link is an example of the "problem" faced by missionaries in PM contexts, as noted in my intro post.

If you don't know John Piper, he is probably the most famous and respected living teacher both in evangelical missionary circles and Reformed/Calvinist circles. Since I operate in both of those circles, he is one of my favorite guys on most subjects. He's also a brilliant scholar, and Chancellor of the Bethlehem College and Seminary in Minneapolis founded by him and his church during his pastorate, in part because his amazing teaching gift was attracting so much attention from folks who wanted to come and learn more from him. But in the linked post, he really agonizes to find a Biblical solution to this very practical question, and in the end he acknowledges that a truly satisfying answer is above his pay grade.

From years of listening to Dr. Piper, I have no doubt that if asked how to pastor an American convert currently living in a same sex union he would have no trouble saying that: (1) their "marriage" is no such thing, so to "sever" it is only to sever a non-existent sham, (2) that their sodomy is sin which must be repented of and forsaken, and (3) that they should have no hesitations about a legal and practical "divorce" since their "marriage" was a sinful non-entity in the first place. But he knows that Scriptural treatment of polygyny is very different from its treatment of homosexuality. So he's held back from this error: "the Church of England in the nineteenth century held a staunch position that polygamists must divorce all but one of their wives in order to join the church." It appears the Anglicans loosened up on that a bit in 1988.

 

[elkanahtyler]

THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY IN AN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT (CALIFORNIA, FOR EXAMPLE)
COPYRIGHT (c) 1997, 2002, 07/04/2009 BY L. TYLER
San Diego, CA Boise ID

Biblical Marriage Polygyny Divorce and Remarriage-THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY IN AN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT

THE PRACTICE OF POLYGYNY IN AN HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT (CALIFORNIA, FOR EXAMPLE) COPYRIGHT (c) 1997, 2002, 07/04/2009 BY L. TYLER San Diego, CA Boise

www.tapatalk.com

#1. An introduction to the laws and legal principles applicable to polygyny.
#2 Federal law and the practice of polygyny.
#3. California law and the practice of polygyny.
#4. The Biblical basis for diligent discretion in polygyny
#5. American Urban Blue Collar Polygyny

GO TO https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...-polygyny-in-an-hostile-environment-t430.html

 

[rockfox]

Are they blinded by their Boomer upbringing?

In part. The thing which keeps them from accepting poly is the same which caused them to invent complementarianism instead of just embracing traditional Biblical marriage. It's offensive to feminist women. It's not nice. It causes feelbads. At the end of the day preachers big and small are about the bottom line, and driving away your biggest customer base isn't helpful to business.

 

[Mark C]

The correct conclusion from this is that polygamy is not mandatory just because people did it in the past. The examples neither prescribe nor forbid it, they are neutral.

Close, but no cigar.

Polygyny [correctly] is not mandatory in MANY situations.

It can be mandated in at least three obvious situations, as demonstrated in Scripture. (I, and many others here, have outlined them often. If it's not obvious, ask, or 'study to show yourself approved.)

 

[Bartato]

Close, but no cigar.

Polygyny [correctly] is not mandatory in MANY situations.

It can be mandated in at least three obvious situations, as demonstrated in Scripture. (I, and many others here, have outlined them often. If it's not obvious, ask, or 'study to show yourself approved.)

I think FollowingHim understands that it is mandatory under certain circumstances. It isn't "generally mandatory".

It is mandatory under the levitate law, following the seduction of a virgin by a married man, and I don't presently remember the third situation.

 

[Mark C]

Rousas J. Rushdoony is the author of The Institutes of Biblical Law, a significant work worthy of exploration. He indeed admits and even defends the 'seeming tolerance of polygamy' and the 'total intolerance of adultery.

He was also the father-in-law of Gary North, whose forte was 'Christian economics" (and he was pretty much Austrian School as well.) But he never made the connection to Scriptural marriage.

 

[Mark C]

It is mandatory under the levitate law, following the seduction of a virgin by a married man, and I don't presently remember the third situation.

Paul outlined it - but 'the church' won't admit the connection:
When a man is abandoned by his wife, and he is "not under bondage," and marries another...
...what if she makes 'tshuvah' and returns?