On Group Discussions, one more time

We have been witnesses to discussions on several internet groups recently that dealt with the topic of polygamy, well, at least to a degree. Indeed, we brought polygamy up in the groups, first in the hope to share opinions on the topic, then, when we learned that that was experienced as an offense, we just made it known in the groups that we lived a polygamous life, explicitly stating that we just wanted them to know and not to be tricked into talking to someone they would not have talked to had they known. But even then, people took offense, and I was unsubscribed more of less graciously from most of them within a short time.

One feature that was common in all of the discussions was that after my initial post, and probably one or maybe two follow-ups in which I answered questions specifically addressed to me, my post were always held back, so that other members even wondered whether I was still a member of the group or not. Well, I was, even those that unsubscribed me sent digests for many days still usually, and so I read with interest what other people had to say to or about me and us, and would have loved to give my tuppence worth too at times. When I dared to do that to individual email addresses, the recipients were very upset, felt singled out or harassed, even though I just tried to politely alleviate their concerns.

Another common feature of these discussions arose from this problem of me being quickly silenced, or the fact that I am not working at the computer all day but am a SAHM, so I usually only got to check the digests at the end of the day when all the work was done: The discussion would take interesting directions that had nothing to do whatsoever with the original post.

Most of the times, People started out talking about polygamy, expressing their feelings about it and their attitudes towards it, sometimes their curiosity, but sooner or later someone would take a strong stand, saying they thought it was sin, to which many others would say "amen, Sister" and "well said", after which the whole discussion would revolve around the sinfulness of polygamy, all the bad things people had seen about on TV recently, and the different suspicions about me and my husband's house that arose from these TV impressions.

Anyone who has been given ears to hear, and therefore reads his and her bible with open eyes, can see that the bible does not condemn marriage as sin, be it polygamous or monogamous. But since church doctrine and society say otherwise, or just because this simple biblical truth is uncomfortable for many, people felt the need to state the sinfulness of polygamy, quoting the same scripture verses over and over again that are all unrelated to the issue (please have a look at the numerous attempts we made to show those verses in context, both here on the blog and on our site Joshuah's House), if they bothered to refer to Scripture at all. Most comments actually stated that the respective author thought polygamy was sinful, and that they were sure God thought the same.

Then, without us even saying one more word, the discussions took off into rather interesting directions. In some groups, the members started to get nasty towards us, very nasty, mainly towards Joshuah, while pitying poor me Talitha. They suspected we were Mormons (which we aren't), they suspected I was "born into it" (which I wasn't) and "didn't know any better" (I indeed know better), they started praying for my poor soul and that I could escape this horrible life very soon.

Others started criticizing each other, realizing the judgmental attitude of many of their fellow Christian ladies, which lead to people leaving the group or quietly looking for more sincere Christian fellowship elsewhere.

Still others patted each other on the back for deleting me from their group, thereby protecting each other from someone such as myself, classifying me as the devil, and got together in group hugs and prayers for protection against this evil, even grouping their current experiences with the tribulations before Jesus' Return - well, we wondered who they thought were the ones being persecuted, though, and we wondered what will happen to these people when REAL trouble comes.

On one group, the ladies were even paranoid enough to suggest that I am actually a man, and thus add fuel to the hysterical fires already burning. This assumption was grounded on the style of the website articles Obviously, people don't expect women to sound as if they knew what they were talking about... Please decide for yourself if you see the compliment or the insult in this assessment.

On another group, the overall concern was that we were joining groups to recruit wives for Joshuah - as if it wasn't self evident that a group of Christian home makers, no matter what their group name would be, would not contain any potential wives. But from our website they concluded that there could be no other reason for me to join their group, no matter how often I tried to point to the real reason for me joining.

After all these experiences, I decided to not mention our convictions anymore on joining any groups, but would still leave our website link in my signature, so that those that were interested could find out who we are and what we believe. This led to someone eventually looking at my profile or the website or the blog, and then broadcast it to the group, like some trophy on a pole.

Overall, all these different directions the group behaviors and discussions took had nothing to do with what we were saying anymore, mostly since we either didn't have the chance to chime in earlier or because our posts were not allowed. Rather than being about us or polygamy as a topic, they said a lot about the ladies in the respective group, and it was plain to many that the Christian coating of their behavior wore off quickly when it came to this topic. It was not us but other group members who pointed these things out, labeling the reaction towards me a witchhunt, being judgmental, or simply rudeness, and I received quite a few emails from women who felt bad about the attitude of others, sometimes also about their own attitude, and felt the need to apologize.

I have to say here that no, I wasn't hurt, neither was Joshuah. I was irritated by some posts that talked about my husband as if he was a monster, and about me as if I was a mindless dolt. Otherwise, most of the discussions, rather than dealing with polygamy at all, or being addressed to Joshuah and myself, showed us and the members of the respective group very clearly what kind of group this really was, brought smouldering power struggles to light, unmasked prejudices and ignorance, and generally speaking showed many of the ladies that chose to participate more as pubescent girls than as Christian ladies, not only to us, but mostly to each other.

So all this was rather a study in group dynamics than what I hoped it to be - a sisterly and friendly sharing of simple and quiet lifestyles. Whatever approach I tried, it was not received well: If I tried to stimulate a discussion - something I was advised to do by some moderators - I was accused of causing trouble, if I was up front about our lifestyle without elaborating on it, I was accused of wanting to recruit wives or lure some poor woman away from her quiet family life, and if I kept silent about it, it was held up against me as if I was trying to hide this aspect of our life. Besides, my decision is to join several groups lately, not just one or two, has been used as a criticism, and without any real reason... I have a variety of interests that are shared by other Christian women, which should not be grounds for suspicion at all.

At least in terms of group dynamics, I have learned a lot, though that was not the lesson I was looking for... God's ways are indeed mysterious.


Technorati Tags: internet groups, polygamy, apologetics, group experiences, Joshuah's House

Response to a Group Discussion

This article is posted here instead of on an internet group in order to remain consistent: I said I wasn't going to elaborate on polygamy in my introduction to the group, but since the topic was taken up by others, we take the opportunity here to answer to some of the arguments offered. This article not only deals with a defense of polygamy (please see our apologetics page at Joshuah's House for a more elaborate defense of this aspect), but also with the general way people read Scripture nowadays. This article addresses biblical marriage and the concept of love, judgment and the notion that Christians always have to follow the law of the land.

On the Matter of Marriage

There were a few verses from the bible quoted in one of the posts I am referring to here. All these verses about marriage (Heb 13:4, Psa 128:3, Pro 5:15-23, 1Co 7:2-3) are very wonderful verses, stressing the beauty and responsibility of a lifelong commitment made before God and the beauty of people caring for each other in a godly fashion. God protects marriage indeed, it is a godly bond that secures the dominion covenant.

But the conclusion that theses quoted verses prove polygamy to be sinful, adulterous and whoremongery is wrong - here, presuppositions shape theology, and not the other way around. Polygamy, according to the presupposition, is not marriage, so the verses about marriage cannot apply to one man and many wives, but have to apply to one man one wife only. This presupposition is not a biblical, but a romantic concept.

Polygamy from a biblical perspective is simply "marriage". If you look up the word "marriage" and the respective verb in the Old and New Testament, you will find that the word is related to the following:

• a contract - "to marry: to give yourself in marriage, to take a wife, to get married" (H2992, G1060)
• a possession - "to possess, to rule over" (H1166)
• to conjugal rights, literally, the flesh (H5772b)
  
• a ceremony (G1062)
  

Nowhere is there mentioning of "star-crossed lovers", a "soul mate", or the "prince on the white horse", so to read romantic notions of marriage, to read exclusivity between one man and one women into biblical marriage is to insert a secular, romanticized concept into the bible that is simply not there.

If you want to point to the "Song of Solomon" for notions of romantic love, please remember who Solomon was and how many wives he loved (and yes, he sinned in not listening to the commandment not to multiply wives to himself as the king (Deu 17:17)), and that Jesus came through this line, came through people like Abraham and Jacob, through the union of Judah and Tamar, David and Bath Sheba, Uriah's widow, all of whom were people who in some way or another lived in a polygamous relationship, or in the case of Judah and Tamar, had issues with the Levirate marriage commandment - check it out in Matthew 1 and the respective chapters in Genesis, the second book of Samuel and the first book of Kings.

If you want to point to Paul talking about letting every man have his own wife and every women her own husband (1Cor 7:2) to prove that Paul advocates monogamy, please look at the two different Greek words translated as "own" here and you will find that they both pertain to the man, that both state possession from the man's perspective - her "own" husband is her "proper" husband, the husband that properly possesses her, just as his "own" wife, "own" being a reflexive pronoun here, is the wife that he possesses, that belongs to him, that he is responsible for. If you look at the language, this verse is not a verse pointing to exclusivity with regards to how many wives a man can have, but rather to a woman belonging to one man alone, thus pointing to the responsibility on the part of the man, but doesn't indicate quantity when it comes to wives. Besides, the context in 1Co 7:2 indicates the reason for marriage in the first place: to avoid fornication. Men have to take responsibility for every woman they sleep with for by sleeping with a woman, a man makes her his wife. Even in today's world, by the way - a marriage that is not consummated is not a valid marriage in court, but could be dissolved based on the fact that it was never consummated, since it can legally be considered null and void. So the biblical standard is kept up here in this regard.

The bible uses no specific term for polygamous relationships, but simply calls having a wife or more than one wife "marriage" - and whenever "marriage" is mentioned in the bible, it refers to the biblical definition of marriage that includes both polygamy and monogamy, and not to a modern day definition of marriage that is based on a romantic concept and a social preference, in our small part of the world, for this romantic ideal.

In the bible you find plural marriage not only to be a common and accepted form of marriage, but also a protected one. The biblical definition of "marriage" is not "one man one women", but "becoming one flesh" (Gen 2:24), and since according to Paul you can become one flesh with a whore (1Co 6:16), it is by no means restricted to one man one woman as such, but to one man one woman at a time. The point about marriage in the bible is that it is a lifelong commitment, a lifelong responsibility, and it is formed by the act of becoming one flesh - no church, no state necessary. By sleeping with someone, you marry him or her. That's the biblical concept of marriage, it is as simple as that.

If polygamy was sin, why would God tell David through the prophet Nathan that he has not only given him his predecessor's wives into his arms, but would also have given him more if that was not enough (but David had to run off and sleep with a married woman (adultery = sleeping with a married woman, the marital status of the man does not figure into the definition), and then kill her husband by proxy (murder) - see 2 Sam 12:8) ? If polygamy was sin, why would a man be required to take his widowed sister in law and produce offspring with her in order to provide an heir for his untimely deceased brother, no matter if he was married already or not (this, by the way, is also contrary to the common incest laws, Deu 15:5-10). If polygamy was sin, why would the law of Moses specifically provide for the first wife and protect her from being cast aside for a 'younger model', as man in his fallen state is prone to do (Exo 21:10)? If polygamy was sin, why would Jesus portray himself as the bridegroom to ten virgins, five of which proved themselves to be unprepared and therefore unworthy (Mat 25:1-13)? And if polygamy was sin, why would God portray Himself as the husband of two wives to make His point about the idolatrous nature of His people (Eze 23)?

Marriage, according to Scripture, can be either polygamous or monogamous, the important bit about marriage is that it is a lifelong commitment, a covenant not to be broken by man - the only exception being the woman committing adultery (Deu 24:1, Mat 19:9). Adultery and whoremongery are sexual relationships outside this marriage relationship, not inside of it. You cannot commit adultery with you own wife, or be a whoremonger with your own wife. That's why the marriage bed is undefiled (Heb 13:4).


On the Matter of Love

When it comes to the biblical concept of love, here too, like always, we need to let God define His terms and not Noah Webster or any other dictionary author. To love God means to keep his commandments (Joh 14:15), to love the brethren means to follow God's commandments concerning the community, and to put the evil away from among the brethren if necessary - again, a concept of responsibility, by the way. Loving the brethren means not to murder and not to steal, not to covet and not to bear false witness, not to commit adultery and not to forget your parents ( the concept of a multi-generational family, by the way). Not to murder includes protecting the brethren from a potential murderer, not to steal means also protecting the community from a potential thief and so on and so forth, so the commandments point to the bigger picture of you not doing these things PLUS doing your bit to prevent these things from happening in the community. Where is the romance in this ? The main aspect of love in the bible is loving God and keeping His commandments, which includes caring for the safety of the brethren, and mainly describes taking responsibility as God commands, both within a marriage and within the community.


On the Matter of Judgment

When you consider the biblical references to judgment, you run into something that looks an awful lot like a contradiction: Judge not so that you may not be judged (Mat 7:1, Luk 6:37), but shun those brethren that are fornicators, idolaters etc. (1Co 5:11 was quoted), and don't let false teachers into your house (2Joh 1:10 was quoted). Besides these, you find Jesus being rather judgmental about people, calling them swine and dogs that you should not waste your pearls on (Mat 7:6), and Paul promises to those that display the fruits of the flesh that they will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal 5:19-21).

God of course doesn't contradict Himself, and this is only a contradiction if you put the first quote absolute, because then, you cannot judge anyone anymore to be a false teacher, a whore monger, a swine unworthy of your pearls, or exhibiting any of the fruits of the flesh Paul lists. The point about not judging is that we should follow God's assessment in every way, and not lean unto our own understanding when it comes to judgment (or any other moral and ethical, social and personal issue, for that matter, Pro 3:5-8). Thus, we can follow God in saying that homosexuality is an abomination to Him (Lev 18:22, Rom 1:26-27), without being judgmental on our own accord. Thus, we can say that liars and cowards are going to burn in the lake of sulphur (Rev 21:8), and don't keep company of people who ignore or ridicule God's Law (2Ti 3:2-5), without be judgmental, for we are obedient to His will in doing so.

The general call not to judge and to associate with everyone equally, no matter what they believe or not believe, violates God's commandment of separation and holiness (Lev 20:26).


On the Matter of Obeying the Law of the Land

Since I just summed this up the other day on this blog, I will just copy the part of the blog post relevant to the comment that polygamy is illegal in the United States.

5.

"Not to mention that in most countries, polygamy is illegal."

If you look at statistics, this assessment is inaccurate and reveals a rather limited world view, but let's continue arguing from a biblical perspective. This statement offers the view that Christians should obey the law of the state... but only as long as it is not in conflict with God's law, of course, since we can only show God that we love Him by keeping His commandments (Joh 14:15). And if people had always thought this same way about home schooling too, for example, it would still be next to impossible to home school your children in this country. But of course many good Christians nowadays take advantage of the fight people like Mr. Yoder fought against the state of Wisconsin, and take for granted their right to educate their children at home simply because it is (no longer) illegal to do so.



Technorati Tags: biblical marriage, internet groups, polygamy, monogamy, God's Law, apologetics, Joshuah's House

Anabaptists and the Worldwide Church of God

A little while ago, I was refused admission to an internet group on grounds of us promoting polygamy as a biblical concept. The group is a group of Christian Home Keepers, and for doctrinal support, they rely on the help of an Anabaptist author (some of his writings are published at www.anabaptists.org and he also posts on conservative Anabaptist internet groups, so I have to assume that he might very well be an Anabaptist himself), who has no children of his own but introduced himself to us in an email as the "Papa" of the (female) group founder.

The email I received from this group founder, as an answer to my application, asked me to look further into Scripture and think again about the concept of polygamy, and as a "help", the main part of the email contained an article titled "Here's the Plain Truth About OLD TESTAMENT POLYGAMY". There was no indication whatsoever that the author of the email was not identical with the author of this article, though the title itself already gives an indication as to the source - ever heard of "The Plain Truth Magazine"?

A web search confirmed our first association, and revealed the author of this article: It was written in 1963 by Herbert W. Armstrong, commonly known as the founder of the Worldwide Church of God. I should be safe in the assumption that this organization is probably classified as a cult by most mainstream Anabaptists and other Christians alike, and even the WCG of today seems to have distanced itself from its founder by now.
Here is a snippet from the WCG website:

"In the 1930s, H. W. Armstrong began a ministry that eventually became the Worldwide Church of God. He had many unusual doctrines. He taught them so enthusiastically that eventually more than 100,000 people attended weekly services. However, after he died in 1986, church leaders began to realize that many of his doctrines were not biblical. Here is the story of how the church developed and changed."

Isn't it fascinating, though, that people don't pay attention to where they get their information from ? This nice young lady obviously ignored the fact that her source of information was rather dubious, just to present me with, I have to say poorly written and completely unconvincing, "evidence" that polygamy was not a biblical concept of marriage.

I know this lady read my yahoo profile, and I also know she visited our website and this blog at some point. Maybe she will do so again, and will pay more attention to where she gets her information from next time... and in all honesty, what good is a doctrinal helper in an internet group if the founder relies on sources such as the aforementioned for argumentative help ?

Technorati Tags: Anabaptists, WCG, Herbert W. Armstrong, polygamy, internet groups, Joshuah's House