Why Now? Why Here?

[ylop]

I am curious as to why polygamy (AKA Biblical Marriage) is gathering interest amongst Western Christians at this time in history. Is this a genuine move of God, or of the flesh? Are there unique circumstances driving this behaviour? Why are Christians considering going against perhaps 1700 years of church tradition (isolated outbreaks ignored for the purpose of this discussion)? In other words, why now and why here?

Here are some random thoughts of mine (some overlapping, others contradictory):
. A genuine move of God in response to the general moral breakdown of society.
. A individual response of men (and sometimes women) to the triumph of feminism in the West.
. The rise of the internet has allowed the tiny percentage of people who believe in Christian Polygamy to connect (in other words, these people were always around but didn't realise anyone else thought the same)
. A individual response of women to the failure of many men to act as husbands and fathers (a man drought)
. As moral standards reach ever lower levels in the world, things that would have been traditionally taboo in western society like polygamy can be relatively openly discussed (biblical or not, it was taboo until recently)
. A movement of the flesh justified as a movement of God
. An inwardly-turning response to the almost complete failure of the pro-life movement to stop the slaughter
. Another diversion for Christian on his path to the Celestial City, perhaps named the "Pit of Polygamy"
. The turning of father's hearts to their children in a last days fulfilment of Malachi 4:6?

What do you think?

ylop

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

In every generation there has been a movement of God to build one doctrine at least, in some cases more.

In the first three hundreds years of the church they correctly systematized the apostles teaching and set forth the bedrock foundations of the faith that were once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). What they had received in discipleship from the apostles they put down in official doctrine for the saints. Those doctrines were the Tri-unity of God, they recognized (not created but recognized) what books were to be in the Bible, established elderships, and they defended and set down in confessions the essence of who was the Father God, Christ, and the Spirit. They also recognized that God created all things, all things were good and holy (even sex but that was starting to slip around 200 or 250 AD). In summary they had the following set down:
-Who was God
-Who Was Christ
-Who was the Spirit
-The creation of the world
-The gospel
-The body of Christ, which was free and distinct fropm the state,ruled by multiple elders
-Christ's return to earth to judge and restore

One book described it this way as to what were the main teachings solidified in the first 300 years of church history:

1. The basic facts of the Lord is Father, Son, and Spirit and his Grand nature. 2. God created the universe from nothing and his creation is good.3. The prophetic and apostolic writings are sacred and inspired. 4. Mankind has sinned and is in need of redemption. 5. Jesus Christ is the Son of God in flesh and the Savior of the Cosmos 6. People are saved by grace through faith and baptized into a new body, the body of Christ.7. Christ will return to consummate history by his Kingdom and establish the new heavens and new earth.

But then by 400 things slipped and Rome came to power in strength by 500. Elderships were lost, and all elders came under the power of the Pope. The gospel was lost, the authority of the Bible was lost, even the Tri-unity of God was skewed as they set forth presentations of it that conflicted with the apostolic witness and the early church fathers. And even more so sex was seen as bad as set forth that priests should not marry. Corruption then developed broadly.

In the reformation the gospel was restored, and the authority of the Bible was restored. This was the reformation from 1450 to about 1600. The doctrines that God focused on there was the doctrine of grace/salvation and biblical authority.

Then in the 1600's another move of God took place. The free church thinkers wanted to get the sword out the hand of the church that took place when Rome developed. All of the seven key doctrines that were in place before Rome had been damaged. Thus this was one work that led to the free church and free state movement that men like Roger Williams developed and led in Colonial America. It lasted from around 1600 to 1776 when America was born and it granted the right to all churches the freedom to preach and teach and removed from the hands of the government the right to use the sword to advance the cause of the gospel.

Then in the 1800's you had the eschatological wars. Rome had corrupted the doctrine of Christ's return. They taught they were the KINGDOM. This was gradually fought for to be shown that no the kingdom of God was still future and that no church should be seen as the KINGDOM because that would lead right back to the idea that the church should have the power of the sword.

Then in the 1900's you had the wars over inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture and Creation versus Evolution. You also had the modernist and fundamentalist wars that waged around those issues. Also, too in that era you had the issues of the Spiritual gifts.

So now, by the time we arrive at the end of the 20th century you begin to see a new rise of people wanting to restore the family. In the wake of the sexual revolution, the rise of feminism, and the thousands of years of corruption by Rome still in place people on a wide scale have now started to re-examine this.

Scholars, like Bill Luck and his 1980's book, hit the seen and others too begin examining this subject afresh. The Complementarian theologians come on the scene to give a true and scholarly presentation of what male headship should look like. Dr Wayne Gruden and Dr. John Piper edit a book called "Biblical Manhood and Womanhood." That excellent book won the Gold Medallion Book Award in 1993 and this spread through the Evangelical Churches and Seminaries. And wherever the headship doctrine goes so does this doctrine as it is a logical consequence of the doctrine, as Tom Shipley corrected noted. Just like years past where conferences were held over eschatology you begin to have men's conferences, Promises Keepers, and a host of other meetings designed to restore the family. The family becomes the focus watch word of the day.

Now, here we are in the early part of the 21st century. The worldwide web took off strong in the 90's and really got air under it in the early 2000's. This connected people like never before and thus this subject has come back to the forefront.

People have to keep in mind: WE ARE ONLY ABOUT 500 YEARS OUT OF ROME. They corrupted all 7 of the key, bedrock, fundamental doctrines. They in that process undermined the family by the Pope Gregory and others who followed him who began to mandate that priests not marry. This led to other key errors.

All seven doctrines listed earlier above were corrupted and so here we are progressively trying to restore another doctrine that was lost.

Dr. Allen

 

[Tlaloc]

Are you talking about Gregory 'the great' or Gregory the VII? They both banned preistly marriage and polygamy and concubinage, though Gregory 'the great' was a lot less powerful and it didn't really stick to all Christiandom in his case. Hence Gregory the VII re-addressing those issues. To me it wasn't until the Hildebrandian era that monogamy only finally won out and the Catholic church went into a doctrinal and ethical free fall and that is just under 1000 years ago. Remember in the time of Hildebrad both marriage and concubinage (essentially polygamy) for priests was common in Northern Europe, and even had its defenders and practices in Italy itself. We've gone about 500 years down the road of Papal supremacy, and now we've gone 500 years back away from it, the time is about right to be undoing the first underpinnings of papal power, and one of those is celibacy of the priesthood (so the papacy may choose priests, and the position not be inherited) established by asceticism and causing monogamy.

I'd say we're going at best against 500 years of tradition not really followed, 500 years of tradition forced on people by the iron fist of papacy, and 500 years of tradition maintained for political purposes. That's not too intimidating.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

I'd say we're going at best against 500 years of tradition not really followed, 500 years of tradition forced on people by the iron fist of papacy, and 500 years of tradition maintained for political purposes. That's not too intimidating.

If we had about 1,000 years of corruption, which did not end all at once, we could even formulate the equation to say we are still dealing with about 1,000 to 1,500 years of corruption if we place the restoration effort of this in the late 20th century. If it was lost in 500 (give or take a hundred or so years one way or the other) and then remained lost on the broad scale until now, then we have a lot of tradition to overcome.

As far as intimidation, well I'm not so sure we ought to feel that if we are theologically solid on our case.

But yes it certainly is an issue that has had both theological and spiritual implications pushing for the monogamy only ideology.

If many families were polygynous, and if each member contributed to the family's strength, it makes sense that those who are power hungry in religious and government systems would oppose this because it akes power away from their goals and agendas to be needed and depended upon.

But that is another topic for another day different than this post so I'll say no more there.

Dr. Allen

P.S. But, of course if we accept the idea that some of the Roman priests were really private polygynists acting in such a way with some/several of the nuns we may really not have had that long of a break anywhere :roll:

 

[Mark C]

I am curious as to why polygamy (AKA Biblical Marriage) is gathering interest amongst Western Christians at this time in history. Is this a genuine move of God, or of the flesh? Are there unique circumstances driving this behaviour? Why are Christians considering going against perhaps 1700 years of church tradition (isolated outbreaks ignored for the purpose of this discussion)? In other words, why now and why here?

Jer 16:19-21

O יהוה, my strength and my stronghold and my refuge, in the day of distress the gentiles shall come to You from the ends of the earth and say, “Our fathers have inherited only falsehood, futility, and there is no value in them.

Would a man make 'mighty ones' for himself, which are not mighty ones?


Therefore see, I am causing them to know, this time I cause them to know My hand and My might. And they shall know that My Name is יהוה!”


It is only just beginning.

 

[CecilW]

Could it be that the proportion of unmarried single parent homes amongst us, and particularly in church, are reaching a critical mass that in itself causes a certain proportion of people to do some serious honest thinking?

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

Well, here's a theory:

"This is just the preparation before the storm. Something huge is coming in the future. I'm not talking about the end of times though. So right now there is the preparation of men and women coming to more Scriptural understanding of things including plural marriage. And in doing so these men and women, particularly men, grow in knowledge and wisdom and become the leaders that they are supposed to be. In doing so they effect their family and raise many kids who go on to do the same. After just a few generations there are many righteous and strong people in the world. Enough to take on and confront the coming storm. Whatever that may be. With so many righteous and strong that will exist in that time, there will be a remnant to carry on and restore things after the storm has been defeated."

Any thoughts?

 

[Tlaloc]

Pretty much, yeah.

 

[ylop]

Two further thoughts:

1. I think the current position of the biblical marriage movement in its historical development could be compared to the homeschool movement in the late 1960's/early 1970's (still a long way from mainstream, will be ultimately tolerated/ reluctantly accepted however only ever for a minority).
2. I am really cautious about thinking we are gaining momentum and numbers when it is really only a gain in connections/networking thanks to the internet, the absolute numbers still remaining much the same.

ylop

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

2. I am really cautious about thinking we are gaining momentum and numbers when it is really only a gain in connections/networking thanks to the internet, the absolute numbers still remaining much the same.

So how do you determine the number of believers then and the number of believers now, now that we have connections?

There may not be a good way of determining that, but it's rational to determine that there is an increase in numbers due to connections or growth in believers.

 

[ylop]

If many families were polygynous, and if each member contributed to the family's strength, it makes sense that those who are power hungry in religious and government systems would oppose this because it akes power away from their goals and agendas to be needed and depended upon.

You have hit the nail on the head with that one. Polygamy will be opposed by established institutions, both government and private, religious and secular; because it empowers families and disempowers the establishment.

I would love to have a strong family, Abram's strength when he rescued Lot comes to mind (Gen 14:14).

ylop

 

[ylop]

So how do you determine the number of believers then and the number of believers now, now that we have connections?

By forcing everyone to return to their home town to register of course!

Actually it is impossible to tell.

What I am saying is, lets be cautious about our estimated strength lest we delude ourselves into thinking we are fast-growing and many when actually in the wider culture we are still a wierdo cult with few in number.

ylop

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

What I am saying is, lets be cautious about our estimated strength lest we delude ourselves into thinking we are fast-growing and many when actually in the wider culture we are still a wierdo cult with few in number.

A good thing we need to remember is that numbers don't matter. It's the character, mission, goals, and fruit of a group that matters. If we continue to strengthen families and grow leaders and raise kids properly to do the same then numbers don't matter at all. It's WHAT we do and not HOW MANY we are.

 

[ylop]

Yes what we do is more important than how many, however it is not helpful to our cause if what we do leads to jail time.

I think most people would be glad to see polygamy decriminalised.

And for that to occur, we do need numbers to achieve political influence.

The actual change can be directed by a relatively small group of people, however it has to garner some sympathy with the masses or it will go nowhere.

Speaking of achieving change with a small number of people, anyone else here a fan of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? by Robert Heinlein?

ylop

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

Yes what we do is more important than how many, however it is not helpful to our cause if what we do leads to jail time.

There's nothing illegal about strengthening and encouraging families. Plus, no one is advocating that anyone register multiple marriage licenses.

And for that to occur, we do need numbers to achieve political influence.

The actual change can be directed by a relatively small group of people, however it has to garner some sympathy with the masses or it will go nowhere.

There's really not a need to have a large number of people who believe in plural marriage per se. Yeah, that would help out and be beneficial, but with the current climate and social attitudes, especially here in America, the liberals are a lot of times willing to support just about anything.

 

[steve]

Well, here's a theory:

"This is just the preparation before the storm. Something huge is coming in the future. I'm not talking about the end of times though. So right now there is the preparation of men and women coming to more Scriptural understanding of things including plural marriage. And in doing so these men and women, particularly men, grow in knowledge and wisdom and become the leaders that they are supposed to be. In doing so they effect their family and raise many kids who go on to do the same. After just a few generations there are many righteous and strong people in the world. Enough to take on and confront the coming storm. Whatever that may be. With so many righteous and strong that will exist in that time, there will be a remnant to carry on and restore things after the storm has been defeated."

Any thoughts?

i am curious to know where that quote (if it is a quote, which it appears to be) came from.
the only thing that i disagree with is the few generations part. i do not feel that we have that much time. i think that we are approaching that reaper overtaking the sower time in history. which is why i get so uncomfortable with status-quo thinking.

 

[Isabella]

There's really not a need to have a large number of people who believe in plural marriage per se. Yeah, that would help out and be beneficial, but with the current climate and social attitudes, especially here in America, the liberals are a lot of times willing to support just about anything.

It is not indiscriminate, it is the fact that those same liberals are also in their own forms of Poly relationships that they also wish to be recognised. People might have different ways of doing things, but the goal remains the same, get the government out of the relationships business.

I think we are stronger if we unite to achieve what we want, than divided.

B
x

 

[CecilW]

Speaking of achieving change with a small number of people, anyone else here a fan of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? by Robert Heinlein?

He's the ONE sci-fi author I read. Particularly liked "Friday" and "The Man Who Sold The Moon"

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

i am curious to know where that quote (if it is a quote, which it appears to be) came from.

It's not a quote. Just something I came up with.

 

[Mark C]

Speaking of achieving change with a small number of people, anyone else here a fan of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? by Robert Heinlein?

Absolutely; I've read everything the Dean ever wrote. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress was arguably the best of his novels, Stranger the most famous, but Time Enough For Love (and the prequel stories) was really my favorite. While I don't accept much of the 'theology', the Notebooks of Lazarus Long are among my favorite non-Biblical quotes...