The Polygamist Next Door
Guest Post: Dan Myers
What comes to mind when you think of polygamy in America? You probably think of Mormons in Utah, or the recent Warren Jeffs trial. Most likely you conjure up images of longhaired women and child brides dressed like settlers from the 1800’s. These stereotypes definitely exist, but after watching a recent clip of the Oprah Winfrey Show, I realized that there are polygamists that look a lot different than I ever imagined.
Here was Oprah interviewing this woman who looked as normal as could be, anyone would assume that she is at least upper middle class. She is an attractive 30 something woman with a modern fashion sense. She could be the mom of a kid that your kid plays soccer with, or the PTA president, or even a woman that you do business with. She and her family could easily live next door to you. No one would ever even think for a moment that she is a polygamist just by looking at her. Her greatest desire is to live a life immersed in contemporary culture without being viewed as a criminal, being that polygamy is illegal in the USA. This woman lives with her husband and his two other wives, and their combined 22 children, in a suburban Arizona neighborhood. The kids go to public school, play sports and take music lessons. The family sees themselves as one big happy family, each with their own schedules and responsibilities. The question of the day is what happens when this family intersects with Christianity?
Lets consider a messy scenario of orthopraxy. Suppose that you have a church in this Arizona neighborhood and these polygamists are your neighbors. You reach out to them, develop a relationship, share the Gospel, and this family comes to faith. How do we then counsel this family in Christian living? Do we require the husband to divorce all but one wife? Do we allow them to stay together? Is it possible for this husband to continue providing for 22 children and 3 women outside of their current context? How do we respond to the biblical examples of polygamy? In 2 Samuel 12, we read of how God gave David many wives, and conceded that if it were not enough, He would have given him even more.
I do not have the answer to these questions, but after seeing this clip on Oprah, it seems almost certain that these issues will come up. How would you counsel this family in their new Christian walk?
23 COMMENTS...:
This topic came up in a class I was in once. Overseas missionaries initially encouraged the converts to keep only their 'first' wives, but the havoc and destruction that it caused these poor cast off women and their children, as well as the men and the larger community caused them to change their policy and allow men with multiple wives to keep them (but now marry more, of course).
Would that be because there's nothing wrong it it? By the way, what they actually practice is POLYGYNY, Polygamy is overbroad.
Has anyone noticed the total ABSENCE of abuse both sexual and physical at YFZ in Texas. Statistically they're so far below the societal norm it should cause us all to embrace the practice.
A couple questions:
I'm trying to pull up a sense of how widespread polygamy was in the Bible. I know that some of the kings (and patriarchs)had multiple wives and concubines, but does anyone know if it was an option for the average "suburban" Hebrew man? I don't get that impression.
But, in any case, it is mega-clear by the time we get to the N.T. that Christ's New Community is not an environment that can have anything to do with polygamy.
Another interesting question for our time comes from China where the "one child" policy has created a terrible inbalance between next generations of men (vast majority) versus women (quite a minority). What kinds of social/spiritual scenarios will that come to produce?
Elkanah by the way, was a Polygynist, so was Lamech, both men rather ordinary. Lamech gets a slam or two for being a bad man but if you examine his family, it's pretty fabulous.
You say:
"But, in any case, it is mega-clear by the time we get to the N.T. that Christ's New Community is not an environment that can have anything to do with polygamy."
Is it just because this lie has been repeated so often and so long that you think I'll buy into it?
One woman = one headache why ask for more. If a man's got multiple wives then the gospel deals with him as he is. Interestingly in the UK we have our Muslim population urging full legal status and acceptance of Polygyny but once it's law then sex discrimination law must kick in and the women then marry lots of men and oh boy what legal and moral confusion could arise. Still in a consumer society I suppose being content with what one has is just not going to work I mean we have needs, we demand more, more more.
Last time I checked, headaches only figured prominently in Greek Mythology.
Oops, that big lie... right... I forgot about all those New Testament texts that support polygamy in the community of Christ.
What were they again?
There is ELDER monogamy, but then there is the requirement that an elder be both teacher and man. It's a condition specific to office, not a requirement for the believer. A believer is not required to be a man, a teacher, nor is a believer required to be a monogamist. To say so from that text is to downgrade women and to make some parts of the body less necessary than others, contrary to scripture as well.
I think your arguement that monogamy is elder-specific (and, btw, I Tim. 3:12 says it applies to deacons, too) but not expected of other believers is fallacious, but let me pose this question:
Do you believe the Bible in general and the New Testament in particular holds monogamy above polygamy, or treats them as morally and ethically equal?
The deacon requirement is specific to deacons. Are we all Elders and Deacons?
I believe scripture as a whole, both old and new Testaments hold monogamy and polygyny as morally and ethically equal. In fact, there are no words for either practice. That's pretty telling.
Thanks for clarifying that you hold them morally and ethically equal. I don't. So, I guess I'll end my comments here.
Well, since you don't, and I do, and you won't discuss it, I'm sure we can count on your vote to legalize it.
If you can't bring yourself to engage in discussion and are willing to simply agree to disagree, as you appear to be doing, then what I would like is to be able to practice polygyny without interference.
In the overseas problems with new christians and multiple wives, they have been taught that they should keep all the wives. The greater responsibility is caring and providing for your wives and childern. God hates divorce, but still allows it. In the same way He would desire faithfulness to one person rather than lusting for more.
But once you have gone down the road of multiple spouses the question is the responsibility of
now. Common sense and scripture would acknowledge that caring for your childern and wives is more important than the regulations inferred by scripture. Espeacially in male dominated cultures like northern Africa, where a divorced wife could be the death penalty. Also there are no social programs for orphans or cast-offs.
Interesting that God makes laws to govern both Polygyny, and Divorce, and depicts himself as engaging in both. But divorce, he says he hates, and never does so in the case of Polygyny.
Never the less both are a result of sin, but that is not the real question. What is God's design and desire? With out a doubt monogamy is the best and most desired. Adultery and all other mentioned sexual impurities are considered sin to man. The support for monogamy is evident in Genesis because God created Adam and Eve. In the same way Paul gives man the position of first in authority due to the fact he was created first; the same line of arguement can be used to show God's purpose for marriage. But in numerous other places support can be shown for the God designed form of marriage. I am sure you will note other exceptions and I'm not arguing those. If explaining marriage it would be irresponsible and poor scholarship to argue exceptions as norm. Using statistics to establish ethics of marriage is weightless even though it may sound good. Also absence of direct reference for or against polygyny doesn't give the practice veracity. Asking questions doesn't answer them or prove them.
God deals with us regardless of our practices. Salvation is not works based so it is possible to be in a polygny relationship and be saved. It is true in the same way a murder can be saved, but that doesn't mean that that was God's design. If you are in a place of responsibilty for others then teach the truth. The truth is God prefers a relationship between one man and one woman. If you don't believe it prove God's design otherwise.
The question of if it should be legal is answered if you believe laws governing people should reflect Biblical ethics.
Christ says a marriage should not be sundered by divorce because of the example of creation, saying that Adam and Eve's union was meant to be permanent on this earth. Thus it is a guiding archetype in the arena of divorce.
Paul says that a man has authority over a woman, because of the order of creation, thus the order of creation speaks to the order of a family.
Nowhere at ALL does it say that the MONOGAMY of Adam and Eve is instructive. NOWHERE. Not one place. We are NOT free to emulate Adam and Eve in all ways that they lived as instructive in our lives.
First, we do not marry our own biological clone. Second we do not have our marriage arranged obviously by God himself. In Genesis 2:24, it says because of their pattern we leave our home and form a new one, but that is not following Adam and Eve's archetype.
In addition, while Adam marries a woman created of his own body, Adam's progeny marry their own siblings by divine and original order, something that also breaks pattern with Adam and Eve.
Bottom line? Adam and Eve are ONLY ARCHETYPAL in the ways we are expressly told they are, not in all ways, and furthermore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to emulate them in all ways, even if we had not fallen.
You are not free to call their monogamy an archetype because there is no passage in scripture that does.
It's interesting that you accept Elkanah and Lamech as instructive but Adam and Eve are not. Also, Gen. 2:24 says they [man and his wife]shall become one flesh. This is a union between two people and two people only. Additionally, many scripture verses refer singularly to the relationship between a husband and wife. So if your looking for support for monogamy, look at
Ephesians 5:28-33 "...He who loves his wife loves himself..." Don't become confused because this (and other) instruction was given to all husbands regarding their respective marriages. It does not support polygny or polyandry for that matter.
It is instructive that no polygynist in scripture is ever cautioned, said to be disappointing God or in any way discouraged in their practice of polygyny, and there are a LOT of them. I do not say Adam and Eve's monogamy is not instructive and Elkanah's IS. God's BEHAVIOR in not so much as raising an eyebrow to any polygynist instructs. God's own depiction of HIMSELF as a polygynist, albeit allegorically, is also instructive (Jer 3 and also Ezekiel)
If there is nothing wrong with either Adam still had to be a monogamist or a polygynist. He can't be both. Thus God can make no statement of preference by making Adam one or the other, if in fact he has no preference. There has to be a COMMENT to that effect by God that he has a preference for one or the other.
Do you also propose that ALL MEN marry women YOUNGER than they are? Adam and Eve are archetypal in MONOGAMY you say, but not in age difference, why is that?
You also ERR in saying that the scriptures say that marriage is between two people and two people ONLY in a concurrent fashion, since God himself says later, in his own law that he gives to Moses, "If a man HAS TWO WIVES."
This coming from the mouth of God himself, it simply has to be possible. (Deut 21:15)
The following neat little syllogism is a result.
YOU ARE "one flesh" with your wife. (Gen 2:24)
You CAN have TWO concurrently according to God. (Deut 21 and also Exod 21 by the way)
Thus you ARE "one flesh" with both at the same time.
Thus exploding the idea that "One Flesh" contains within itself some sort of notion of an exclusive, bilateral marriage relationship.
All the arguments for "monogamy only" are false. They're just respectable because the lie has been believed by most of orthodoxy for such a long time. It's still bunk. I'll take them on for you ANYWHERE, ANYTIME against ANY OPPONENT. Not a problem.
Hugh, you seem very passionate in the defense of polygyny, and that makes me fear you would be closed to arguments against. However, I appreciate your points. I agree that the common arguments raised against polygamy (to use the more general word) and in support of monogamy often are not nuanced or thought through. Let me, though, give you my reservations about the advisability of polygamy.
Note: I'm not sure if the blog owners want to continue such a discussion here, so I've replicated this comment over on my website here http://kiwiandanemu.org/?p=451. (Sorry, the embedding failed).
1. Not all the qualifications for elders and deacons are specific to the office - in fact most are not. You have included being the husband of one wife in the office-specific elder qualifications of being male and being able to teach. Reasons for those two qualifications can be found in the nature of the office - being the husband of one wife cannot. Yes, an elder must manage his household well in order to look after the church, but that does not require him to be married to only one wife!
Therefore, I personally see no reason why being married to one wife is specific to the elder’s office, and even less reason for a deacon. I would put that qualification in the category of “a good example of Christian living”. I know you will disagree, but what are your reasons for including that qualification in the “elder-specific category” and not the “general good example category”?
2. While you are right that Genesis 4 doesn’t specifically condemn Lamach’s polygyny, the general description of his character does not lead someone to think the first person to have more than one wife was godly or following God’s original plan. That is by no means a fool-proof argument, especially considering godly men followed in his footsteps. Still, it concerns me.
3. Matthew 19:9 has Jesus saying: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
It is difficult to understand how that statement works if polygyny was not considered morally wrong. I realise that a polygynist does not divorce his wife, but the premise of Jesus’ statement is that a man who divorces his wife (except for immorality) is still married to her - otherwise, how could the charge of adultery stick? And if he’s still married to her, and commits adultery by marrying another, how can polygyny be morally equal to monogamy?
These points make me reluctant to accept polygyny as an acceptable practice for a Christian. I agree that a polygamist who becomes a Christian should remain married to and support all his wives (though I’m open to changing my mind on that), but with the above considerations I can’t see that it is God’s perfect will for anyone.
In point one you propose that Elder/Deacon monogamy is on the list of things that ARE to be an example to all. Even still we could propose that the example then is following Roman Law, and speaks nothing against polygyny. Nevertheless all I must do is show that it COULD be on the list of items that are simply specific to office and not examples of good moral character. Once I do this a supporting verse outside these must be found to establish polygyny as a sort of moral defect or shortcoming. There is no such verse. Where there is no law, sin is not imputed. There never was such a law. Now you imply a general directive of behavior embedded in an instruction to one group. This is not how you communicate to a population that saw and understood polygyny as part of the behavior of God’s people as being wrong. There needs to be something far more specific.
Lamech is not even certfied to us as the FIRST polygynist. In fact from the text it is virtually certain that he was not. He has an apparent character flaw or two, centering around his hot temper and perhaps overreacting through killing another. Other Bible characters have similar flaws and are said to be Righteous. The rest of the passage goes on to tell us how wonderful his family was, achieving many firsts in society. Both of his wives are NAMED, a rare thing in this portion of scripture. With all that is done in his family being labeled as precedents, why is it that his polygyny is not said to be a precedent? Simple, it’s not.
In quoting Matthew 19, you quote Matthew Henry’s old argument against polygyny. Just as with elder/deacon monogamy, all I have to show is that there could be another explanation other than yours. Here is MY explanation. It is not wrong to be Polygynous. Thus the adultery of the man is dependent on his wrongful divorce of the first wife in the example. It is noted that if the condition of wrongful divorce is removed, and the example replayed, there is no sin. Namely, if a man A.) does NOT divorce and marries again, the structure of the statement by Christ does not call that act adultery. B.) If he divorces for cause, it does not call his act adultery.
Your analysis requires again, support from the outside, namely the clear statement elsewhere that polygyny is wrong. There is no such statement. The only other supposition I could have about your argument depends on the NOTION that Christ then invents a new kind of adultery, which he could not be said to do. Is this what you say? If it is, I have an answer for that as well.
You may say there is no evidence against polygny, but there is evidence for monogamy. The burden is for you to provide evidence where polyny or polygamy is a directive. Tradition is based on the clear precedent of scripture for monogamy as the basis for God designed marriage. Does God have to state the obvious? Polygny is not the model clearly taught, and so the abscence of direct discussion on the topic does not give license for practice. Because God doesn't speak directly of trucks, does that mean if we love our truck enough we can marry it? Since the Bible does not directly speak of it this is license for that behavior. Common sense would say no, based on the tradition derieved from scripture this should not be allowed. The man who wants to marry his vehicle, like you would point out, has no such scripture to say he shouldn't. Whatever logic of exception you use he can use. I use this example because somewhere in the eastern states a man wants to marry his old truck. But many other examples could be used also. The reason for 1 man and 1 woman is not because it's a law, but it is because that is His design. As christians we are not subject to the law, but we should desire to fulfill His will as outlined by the Bible. It does not need to be spelled out though in most cases it is. In the gray areas common sense as well as tradition as well as scriptural consistence should be used. With first precendent given to Scripture. The burden therefore is on you to show obvious and direct relation with God's will for plural marriage. Exceptions and rarity do not convey God's consistent will through History.
So giving examples of men who plural partners is not evidence holy or unholy.
No, the burden is on you. The thrust of Biblical history is inclusive of Polygyny as a practice. Never once is even a DISCOURAGING word said about the practice by God. If you have something going on all around you and you never even so much as clear your throat about it, it's safe to say you're OK with it.
Few men in the Old Testament are even claimed to be Monogamists. From implication we understand that Adam was, but it's not stated clearly. Offhand I can only point to one that is made mention of, and that is Uriah. Nathan says that Uriah only had one wife, beyond that I can recall no person who is clearly stated to have only one wife. The reason given for Uriah's monogamy is his poverty.
The law in Deuteronomy commonly referred to as "Levirate" law compelled men to take wives regardless of their current estate. It is God's law. Jesus even discussed in in a theoretical which had to include other wives as it discussed seven brothers making an effort to preserve inheritance. Again, no condemnation.
No, the burden of proof is on you.
"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Romans 5:13.
There is still no such law to this day. My conclusion is that there is no sin.
Leslie McFall has an interesting way to deal with the so-called exception clause in Matthew 19:9 that appears to allow for divorce and remarriage for marriage unfaithfulness.
He has written a 43 page paper that reviews the changes in the Greek made by Erasmus that effect the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated. I reviewed McFall's paper at Except For Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9. I would love to hear some feedback on this position.
Post a Comment