Sorting Out Polygamy
Re. Cast Iron Kites – I have been baffled for some time by the evangelical inclination to talk of polygamy as a worse perversion than homosexuality. Christ states polygamy to be a corruption of “the beginning” and the Christian is clearly barred from it. But as best I can tell from Scripture, a man with two wives is treated as married to both – allowed, let us say, for a time for hardness of heart – while as we all know calling a homosexual affair a “marriage” is an affront not just to God but to common sense. Erosion of marital monogamy is bad, but complaining that “this is what accepting homosexuality leads us to” seems a bit like worrying that a man who’s cheating on his wife may next be led into gambling on the horses without telling her.
Jonathan
Jonathan, but our modern situation is not at all like the polygamy found in the Old Testament (which was sub-par with regard to the creation order). Our situation will allow for a woman to have multiple husbands, which as a marital grotesquery is right up there with homosexual mirage. See the next letter . . .
I never thought I would hear this so soon from the church, but it shouldn’t be a surprise. I have heard it said that most homosexual marriages are not meant to be monogamous, which would explain in part why polyamory is becoming more socially acceptable, as was predicted by supporters of traditional marriage. And because we are a society that values gender equality and more or less accepts homosexuality, and since homosexual couples can never have biological children together, when polygamy is legalized in this country, as seems likely to happen in the not-so-distant future, it will be legal for a woman to have more than one husband, unlike almost all other societies which have accepted polygamy, for it will not matter to many people that a woman having two husbands makes both men less fertile, with no practical advantage to herself. It will be something with serious practical and societal consequences if polyamory becomes widespread
James
James, yes. Exactly. Polygamy and polyandry are not even close to being equivalent.
Cast Iron Kites —
Pastor Wilson, I need to ask this is all sincerity: how do we derive the position from Scripture that polygamy is sin? 1. God gave a multitude of very specific rules regarding sexual sin. He even went so far as to list who we could and could not have relations with, defining for our dictionaries the meaning of incest (and vindicating lots of Arkansans who have married their first cousins). We know what rape is because God calls it out as sin. We know that homosexuality is sin because God spells it out . . . frequently. We know that we’re supposed to leave the animals alone because God condemns that, too. But He failed to mention polygamy for some reason. Actually, He did mention it; He said when you take on another wife, don’t neglect the first one. Also, it’s probably not wise to marry sisters. So . . . how do we know polygamy is sin?
2. We have the picture of creation, where God saw that amongst all the animals not one was found suitable for Adam, and so God created one (not many) woman (not another man). This seems reasonable to infer. But as humanity began to engage in the practices of bestiality, polygamy, and homosexuality, God gave the Law to Moses to specifically ban sex with animals, close relations, and people of the same sex. But He did not ban multiple wives. So how do we say it is sin?
3. We have many anecdotal examples of men sinning sexually and God rendering judgment upon them for that sin. Whether it’s spilling one’s seed on the ground when specifically commanded to procreate, or raping one’s sister, or killing a man to take his wife, or marrying that 700th wife . . . God has made it clear that these things were sinful. But never once did God condemn Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, or any others for polygamy. He condemned Abraham’s lack of faith that the chosen seed would be through Sarah and He condemned Solomon’s excessive abuse (“multiplying wives”) but he never said “your sin is adultery, unfaithfulness and generally being a lust monkey.” So why do we say polygamy is sin?
4. Paul laid out for us the conditions of eldership, including the command that the elder be the husband of one wife. While this can mean that he must actually have a wife, it can also be taken as a prohibition of prior divorce as much as a prohibition of polygamy. But is this standard for eldership intended to be a broad and universal standard for all men? Why then the particular list? Why not just say “be a Christian?” Paul was keen on warning against particular sins, such as the quote you gave from 1 Cor 5. But the sin in Corinth was that a man was sleeping with his mom (or step-mom). Yes, God already condemned that in the Law, and so Paul had strong words for them. He also roundly condemned homosexuality, but never polygamy . . . both of which were commonplace in ancient Rome. So . . . how do we conclude that this is sin?
I know that we do. I simply have a very difficult time making that argument from Scripture. Please help me. Thanks,
Malachi
Malachi, here is the scriptural case that polygamy is sinful, in brief. First, begin with Christ. Christian men are told to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and He has one bride. Second, Jesus appeals to the creation order in His argument against divorce, saying from the beginning it was not so. The same argument applies to polygamy. Third, Christian leaders are required to be “one-woman” men, and the Christian rank-and-file are told to imitate their leaders and their way of life (Heb. 13:7, 17).
So polygamy is clearly sinful. But it is not sinful in a way that puts it in the same category as homosexuality. Like divorce, polygamy results from hardness of heart, and biblical law accommodates it while rooting it out slowly. Fast forward twenty years, and imagine different family units coming to your church asking for membership, and let us pretend that everything is legal by that point. Same-sex couples should be required to break up in order to join, polyandrous units would be required to break up, and polygamous units would not be required to.
At the same time, I would not let the husband have voting privileges, and he would be excluded from church office. He would also have to agree not to add any more wives, and I would want to require him to agree with these standards (and the reasons for them), and not just comply with them.
Thanks for your ministry and courage. I have a question related to two recent articles: ‘Not that Simple’ and ‘How to Fly your Cast Iron Kites’. Regarding the latter, I agree that no measure of supposed “goodness” such as hospitality, deep relationships, etc. coming out of a clearly sinful behavior (polyamory) make it somehow good, or even not quite so bad.
However wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to man-stealing? Regarding the former article I am grateful for the history lesson, the truth should be known. But the tone of it seems to be softer toward those engaging in or knowingly complicit with man-stealing/enslaving, which is condemned in both Testaments.
Shouldn’t the entirety of American slavery be condemned on a hard line on the basis of man-stealing alone, regardless of any benevolent masters or mutually affectionate relationships? If not could you explain the difference?
Thanks
John
John, you are right about the man-stealing, which should be a capital crime. But when we do biblical ethics, we should reason from what the Scriptures explicitly teach. There is no doubt that the gospel should subvert the slavery in slave-holding societies. But how? That is the only real question. The New Testament teaches on this very topic explicitly, and I believe that it is a far less bloody way of subverting an ungodly institution. And if polygamy becomes legal, as I have no doubt it will (absent a massive revival), I would want to subvert it in the same way. See above.
How To Fly Your Cast Iron Kites is great work! You are one of the clearest voices in our day, brother! I had Sprinkle as a professor back in 2011. Those gusty winds were blowing way back then too.
Jon
Jon, thanks much. And for those who want to fly such kites, the winds are always there.
You asked “Who writes this stuff?” Preston Sprinkle is the president of the Center for Faith, Sexuality and Gender who (according to Warhorn Media) is the entity behind Revoice. Preston was a speaker there in 2018. Those facts lead me to believe that CT isn’t just being naive in publishing this. Love,
Matt
Matt, thanks.
In your article Clueless or Complicit you mentioned that you thought the current craziness had 3-5 years before there was a backlash. Could you expound on why you think 3-5 years and what the backlash would be?
Thanks
Jonathan
Jonathan, there are different kinds of sins. Some are just inept, like painting your new Lexus with a paint roller. But others are insane, like putting triangular wheels on it. Our current frenzies are in the latter category, and sometime in the next few years there will be some men that God will raise up, who will be willing to say that these triangular wheels “aren’t working.” They may make some additional observations as well.
Using God’s Gifts to Sin With
With regards to ‘How to Fly Your Cast Iron Kites’, a (somewhat tangential) question on the affirmation of supposed righteousness in acts of unrighteousness. My wife and I have a four-year-old boy. We’ve listened from time to time (she more than I) to podcasts from Jim and Lynn Jackson’s ‘Connected Families’. One of those podcasts is entitled “The God-given gifts in your child’s misbehavior.” Roughly taken, the thesis is that where children sin they may very well be mis-employing God’s particular gifting of them rather than merely acting out randomly. For example, a child might be an extraordinary linguistic communicator and that child might be disproportionately likely to tend towards negotiation rather than obedience. In those cases, the thesis goes, it is right to discipline the sin but also good to encourage the child towards employing their gift in Godly ways (so discipline and then “little Jimmy, God in creating you made you to be an extraordinary communicator- how can you use that gift to His glory?” and so on and so forth). I don’t recall if they describe it in these terms but in essence, absolutely do not spoil the rod in directing the child where not to go but also ensure to train the child in the way they in fact SHOULD go as regards those gifts and who God has created them to be.
Is this a different idea than the one you are describing or the same? Do you see it as problematic/helpful/unhelpful/etc?
Many thanks for your continued ministry.
Mike
Mike, I think this is correct. All sin is parasitic, and bends or twists good things in order to function. And I think parents should be aware of this as they teach and admonish their kids. But there is a difference between flattering them in the moment of discipline in order to soften it (which should be avoided), and equipping them after the discipline to face their next temptation.
Approval or Participation?
I want to preface this comment by saying I am a fellow reformed brother in Christ. This prodding is not a jab at you, rather, I wanted to press you to see if your thoughts and position(s) has “evolved” concerning the current state of sexual affairs. In your work, “Same-Sex Mirage”, you stayed on page 121, “ The entire sexuality battle is about approval, not participation.” For publication dating purposes, (if this is interacted with for an audience other than the two of us), your work was published in 2016. Now, to my inquiry.
I may be playing the retrospective-devils-advocate here, but would you say that in just 4- well rather 2.5 to 3- short years after you penned the above quoted statement, that the deck has been flipped, per se, concerning participation? No longer is there an appeal to approval, but now there is a mandate on participation. For example: “Call me Ms. Abigail- Formerly- Adam- So- And- So while simultaneously referring to me as ‘they’ and ‘them’ . . . or else.” It seems to me approval has gone out the 10 story window and in the way back into the cultural high-rise we’ve come to realize the elevator only goes straight to the bottom (I.e. us guys and gals with unwavering commitment to biblical truth) and straight to the top of the participation penthouse.
Thoughts?
Zach
Zach, no, I haven’t changed my thinking on this, and I think our apparent disagreement is just a matter of definitions. I would categorize their demands that we use their pronouns as examples of mandatory approval. If I am required to use someone else’s preferred pronouns, I am not being required to adopt their sinful sexual lifestyle, but I am being required to talk about their sinful lifestyle as though I approved. That is what I meant in Same-Sex Mirage.
Wifely Gravitas
Regarding “The Rebound Transfer”: Generally speaking, when a pastor sees this situation, is it wrong (on the part of the wife) that the “theological gravitas” is coming from the wife? Is it helping to make her husband negligent in his duty? I realize that he is at fault and fully accountable to God for where he is spiritually, but I’m wondering from the perspective of a wife.
Karie
Karie, no. If the wife understands more than he does, this is his problem, not hers. Her responsibility should be to be respectful with her understanding, as much as she can be. But in the scenario I was describing, the abdication was on the part of the husband. It was not a usurpation on the part of the wife.
I realize that this is fiction — and having read your writing for a while, I suspect this comes with a “hidden test” for the reader. Early on we read, “Murray had even served several terms as a ruling elder.” And then, ” A few follow-up questions revealed that Murray knew next to nothing about the doctrinal issues involved, and as the pastor was driving away he realized that all the theological gravitas in that household had been coming from Denise.”
I throw the “non-sequitur” flag! How could Murray have functioned as a ruling elder when the theological gravitas had been coming from Denise? Having served over a decade as a one of several elders in our church, the elders I know would have spotted that in the “meeting with the elders” phase before recognizing him as an elder. Am I missing something?
John
John, I was not assuming the husband in this fictional situation was a dullard. He could give all the catechism answers, and sound orthodox enough. But I was talking about the kind of lack of understanding that is revealed in life choices, not in a discussion with other men who all profess the same thing.
Inner Tozer Stuff
In response to Unleashing my Inner Tozer and Ascol’s linked article. I think one of the root issues of the US church is than many within have carnal minds that is drawn in by worldly entertainment. Look no further than the stiff blow-back to Kevin DeYoung’s simple statement that Christians should not partake in pornographic shows like Game of Thrones. I might also add that many of the films recommended by TGC’s Brett McCraken fall in the same unacceptable category. It’s no wonder the church responds with ungodly marketing ploys. And when Satan has church members sucked into that ungodly entertainment, it’s not wonder their minds are shaped towards the world’s views of gender, race, politics, etc.
So my question is, how should we as Christians respond when we encounter fellow believers (within our own local church or not) that are seduced by the entertainment that you and Ascol are talking about. Is it just a matter of Christians not having enough discernment and we need to call them to give up their ungodly entertainment? Or are these people lost and we need to call them to wholesale repentance?
Roger
Roger, I think it is likely both. In most churches, I would begin with a good defense. “We don’t participate in that kind of entertainment for the following reasons.” Usually that will be enough to get the necessary conversations going.
Infant Baptism
I’m reformed baptist — today I was strongly moved to consider paedobaptism . . . mainly because of the point that it does resemble OT Israel’s sacrament of circumcision. As I see it, the promise to *corporate* Israel, was ‘Do this, and live.’ As I watch the usage of infant baptism over time, the warnings to the Gentiles overlay well with the usage of circumcision and the warnings to Israel (Gen 17, Rom 11, Matt 3, Rev 2). They give firm warnings to corporate ethnic groups to remain in the blessings of the Covenant, and curses have been promised and dealt to Jew and Gentile alike (*first the Jews, then every single Gentile group burns, then burns out, and hands the baton to someone else geographically*), while the internal/invisible People of God have always been protected/guaranteed. Point being, there is a responsibility to the Corporate people of God, along with a corporate sign (circ/baptism) and if/when they fail the Covenant by not obeying corporately, then the ax is laid to the roots of the tree or to branch of the olive tree. How else do we reconcile all of the warnings to the Gentile Church from Jesus and Paul? Does this work or am I crazy?
Trey
Trey, yes. That works. But you probably knew I would think so.
Scrupulosity
I enjoy reading your blog and other resources regarding this Christian life. I would love to hear what you think about this issue: I have dealt with anxiety for 12 years — diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder taking the form of scrupulosity. In other words, I obsess about sin. This has lead me to question my conscience — is it my anxiety or my conscience telling me to tuck tail and run? I’ve learned to deal with my scrupulosity by weighing my conscience against Scripture, but where I’m getting hung up is with Romans 14:23 and whatever isn’t from faith is sin. If my conscience is always weak, how can I do anything in faith?
Megan
Megan, to the extent that this is a true spiritual problem, it is the result of not being scrupulous enough about sin. For example, say somebody asked you what time it was, and you said “quarter till.” Later that night you are worried about the fact that it was actually sixteen minutes before the hour, and you are meditating on whether to call that person up and apologize for lying to them. The battle shouldn’t be fought there. The battle should be fought by recognizing the temptation to try to be holier than God is itself a grievous sin, and you ought to feel really bad about that. Hyper-scrupulous people are as sinful as they think they are, they just aren’t sinful where they think they are.
Provide and Protect
I am thankful for your work for the gospel. Your robust biblical views have definitely affected me well.
I do have a question.
In your book Federal Husband, you said the man is the head of the wife (and household) and thus he has to take responsibility, provide, protect, etc.
Also, in your video series “Man Rampant”, Aaron Renn (in The Lie of Servant Leadership) mentions that it is unhelpful to think that providing, protecting, and procreating should be limited to women and children. He goes on to say that men are given a mission, and that is to provide, protect and procreate civilizations and societies as well.
However, I became confused at this point. The basis of the husband providing and protecting his wife is the covenant. But on what basis should men (especially single men) provide and protect society? Is it because its the mission God gave to us (Genesis 1)? If that is the case, how do you relate “covenant” with “mission”?
In other words, if the basis of the husband taking responsibility (providing and protecting) for his wife is the covenant, that on what basis should men take responsibility in their work and society, especially single men?
Thank you so much. May God continue to bless you.
Cheers,
David
David, Paul teaches us that leadership in the church should first be demonstrated in the home. If a man cannot manage his household, how could he lead in the church? Flip this around. If men are learning how to provide and protect in the home, with that as their boot camp, they will have learned valuable lessons there, and will be equipped to take up greater responsibilities in the outside society, as God provides those opportunities. Conversely, when men are lame at home, they will usually be lame everywhere else. Irresponsibility is contagious.
[…] Show Outline with LinksSorting Out PolygamyRe. Cast Iron Kites – I have been baffled for some time by the evangelical inclination to talk of polygamy as a worse perversion than homosexuality. Christ states polygamy to be a corruption of “the beginning” and the Christian is clearly barred from it. But as best I can tell from Scripture, a man with two wives is treated as married to both – allowed, let us say, for a time for hardness of heart – while as we all know calling a homosexual affair a “marriage” is an affront not just to God… Read more »
Reply to Trey on infant baptism.
Circumcision was for people recently born into the Hebrew family.
Baptism is for people recently born again into the family of God.
So there is a strong analog between baptism and circumcision. You just have to use the New Testament to identify who the baby Christians are, and baptize those. They aren’t people born from other Christians. They’re people born of the Spirit.
Bro. Steve, I work in an area where many folks hold this view. I have two problems with this idea: (1) It requires those of us who do baptize to know the man’s heart. Is this a sincere profession of faith? Or was he being fraudulent? The new birth is spiritual, but water baptism is physical. Unfortunately, it blurs the lines between visible and invisible church. (2) Also, what do we do with the kiddos in the church? Do we treat them as unbelievers? Or do we teach them to pray to “Our Father, who art in Heaven”? Do we… Read more »
Isn’t infant baptism, trying to save children through the ‘works’ of others?
Not at all.
BJ, am I understanding you correctly, that you are making a case for infant baptism on the basis that we don’t know a man’s heart? So we should baptize as infants because of this? Or have I misunderstood you?
To your second point, it sounds like you are advocating infant baptism so that we can categorize people more effectively? Or in your third paragraph – of your second point – are you saying you have to provide reassurance to individuals who were not baptized as infants?
LM, To your first question, no that is not my point. I am suggesting that folks who argue that we should only baptize those that we know are born again, which would exclude infants, require us to do a mind reading trick on those we do baptize. It erases the distinction between the visible and the invisible church. In other words, if the basis for applying baptism is that someone has been born of the spirit, rather than a part of the visible church community, we have to have a criteria for determining that it has occurred. Most folks would… Read more »
Are we not missing that baptism is a representation? This is representing the resurrection of the ‘new man’. ‘Getting dunked’ is symbolizing the death of the old man, and new life in Christ. It really isn’t a complicated matter. When we complicate it, we get stuck in legalism. I would question, why people are questioning their faith based on baptism? Baptism does not save. Baptism is a step of obedience, but if that step is not taken, and that individual dies, they are still the righteousness of Christ. My heart feels for the believers that you listed above, but the… Read more »
LM, “I would question, why people are questioning their faith based on baptism?” In my experience, they aren’t. They are questioning their faith, because people are telling them that the basis of their salvation is some sort of experience they have of the new birth. You are correct in that “they are misplacing their faith and missing the truth of justification.” But, they are missing it, not because they were baptized as infants, but because ministers are telling them that they must have some kind of experience. If you were baptized as an infant and then were later convinced that… Read more »
BJ, That’s very disheartening that that is happening. Fortunately I have never been a part of a local body who has taught that doctrine. We are all responsible for our faith – we are told to work it out with fear and trembling and I have confidence that those who seek the Lord, He will meet and the Holy Spirit will direct them in truth. So that being said, we are giving the devil a foothold of fear, if that would be the motivation to baptize infants. We cannot create our own doctrine of baptism simply because we are frightened… Read more »
LM, I think we are talking past one another. Let me try to simplify this. (1) If symbolism is the basis for the method of baptism, as you indicated you thought it was, then why do we pick one symbol of salvation (burial and resurrection), but reject other symbols of salvation (the pouring out of the Holy Spirit and being purified from sin by being sprinkled with clean water)? It seem totally arbitrary to say one is biblical and the other is unbiblical. (2) You said, “I don’t think that baptism is an emotional experience, just like I don’t believe… Read more »
BJ, agreed, you’ll have to forgive me, I can be thick at times. 1. I don’t pick that symbol, that is what Scripture says. I would encourage you to seek out what baptism actual in is Scripture; not what a Catechism says, but what God says about biblical baptism. 2. Again, I’m thick, and I believe I see now. The whole ‘experience’ I am speaking about, is when the Lord gives faith and a person believes on the work of Jesus Christ. Baptizing an infant does not mean they do or ever will become unified with Christ. There is no… Read more »
LM, You are not thick, at least, I don’t think so. And since I haven’t said it yet, thanks for the chat. 1.) All of the symbols I have mentioned are in Scripture. All of them are related to salvation. Baptism is a picture of salvation. I am not getting these ideas from a catechism, I am pointing you to Scripture. I know what baptism is, and the Bible clearly speaks about it in different ways, all of which are pictured in the symbols I have highlighted. To say that one (immersion) is biblically required, and the others (pouring and… Read more »
Ah thank you as well for a delightful conversation. My apologies beforehand, this may be long and perhaps winded, but I don’t know how to give a short answer to this brilliant truth. 1. Peter says, ‘Repent and be baptized’. Repentance is a turning of direction, we follow that up with baptism. Infant baptism is putting the horse before the cart. Which begs the question, why mix up the order? If you are mixing up the order, it must mean that one doesn’t understand the Father’s heart for baptism. To your first point, I was thinking, “It is the glory… Read more »
If a Christian is facing doubt, there are a few factors that could be in play. Perhaps they are lacking faith. Romans 10:17 ‘So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.’ Maybe they are believing lies about the Character of God. Perhaps they don’t believe He is who He says He is – and then they can’t hold fast to His promises. ‘John chapter 5:24, ‘Jesus said, “He that hears My Word and believes on Him that sent Me has everlasting life. And, therefore, shall not come into judgment but is passed from death unto life.” Or… Read more »
BJ,
Conversely, children baptized as infants may think they are saved already and not feel the call to repentance.
Adults who joined the church for carnal reasons and were baptized as adults may think they are already saved and not feel the call to repentance too. Fear of giving a person false security could apply to any baptism, and is therefore not a meaningful argument with regards to infant baptism.
Anyone who joined the church for carnal reasons more likely never supposed they need to be saved in the first place, in which case any false sense of security is owing to never having realized insecurity, rather than owing to a reliance on baptism. Baptism that was preceded by acknowledgement of a need for salvation (for one thing) will not be the cause of a false sense of security, unless the individual is allowed to believe that it is baptism that saves.
If a particular church is failing so badly to preach the gospel that anybody is getting the idea that having been baptized means you aren’t called to repentance, the timing of baptism is waaaaaay down the list of things that need to be fixed.
If that is the case then we have failed our baptismal vows to disciple our children and teach them to rest in their faith and not works.
Deuteronomy 6:4-9 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your… Read more »
My Portion Forever, Churches that baptize infants and young children, e.g. Anglican, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, The Episcopal Church, also to have a liturgical tradition that weekly calls us to contrition, confession, repentance, and absolution. The children raised in these traditions are soaked in these calls. At every baptism (and at other times in the liturgical year) we not only renew our baptismal vows but we promise to help our fellow baptized believer to live into their baptismal vows. For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the… Read more »
DCL, you know as well as I that you won’t find them, along with a fair number of other common practices that I’d be glad to list for you, enumerated in the Bible. But then it has been the practice of the church for close to 2000 years and that should count for something. I’m sure you see no harm in believers being reminded of and renewing our commitment to follow Jesus, and also encouraging our brothers and sisters, including the little ones, to do the same. If you haven’t, I encourage you to take a look at these vows.… Read more »
“Also, what do we do with the kiddos in the church?”
Honest question (for anyone who cares to answer) about practice, but also, for the sake of honesty, a “But what about…?” question:
What *do* we do with juveniles who were baptized as infants when it comes to membership? Are they considered full members in the congregation from the start? Do they have voting privileges? Must they first be formally confirmed in the faith before they are recognized as members in the church, or The Church?
It varies from church to church, but as I see it, they would be full members of the church family, yet they remain under the headship of their father (or rightful head of household, as the case may be) without voting privileges until they were confirmed or somehow additionally moved to a different position (like a formal membership class).
Thanks BJ.
I was not being disingenuous, I knew something like that was the case, but I was interested to see more specifically what different churches practice, and perhaps the reasoning behind the practice.
It seems to me if confirmation or a formal membership class is considered necessary then baptized children would be something less than full members of the church family in the meantime. To a credobaptist is perplexing that someone can be declared to be in church but then need to later confirm that they are in the church before they are accepted as being in the church.
Hey JohnM, We are an elder ruled church, so voting in congregational meetings is not really considered part of the ruling of the church. It is more an affirmation of the leadership. So, they are not less than full members. If anyone would be less than full members, it strikes that denying them baptism would signal that. But, the distinction is whether someone is part of the faith community. If our children are to be taught that God is their Father, and they are to actively participate in the life of the congregation, and they have entire programs dedicate to… Read more »
BJ, To answer your questions: Presently I’m in a Presbyterian church, not particularly for doctrinal reasons – like I indicated, some familiarity, but they’re not all the same so I ask questions. My background, and at least to some degree my outlook, is Baptist. It’s complicated, but part of the explanation is options currently available. 1. It’s been a while since I’ve been in a Baptist church meeting, and the short answer is, I don’t remember what we did with regards to younger baptized children. Otherwise, yes, every member can vote. It is worth noting that congregational churches do not… Read more »
Hey John, First of all- I’m glad to see some serious conversation here again, and I would like to praise you particularly for continuing to be a solid thoughtful commenter even when most of the section devolves to drive-bys. Second- your comment about 10-year-olds is illustrative of (part of) the logic that led me to accept and then propound infant baptism. I happen to have a 10-year old among my brood, and he is relatively precocious. He certainly understands the gospel better than many mentally handicapped adults, and probably much better than your average adult convert who has done several… Read more »
Demo, Like BJ said, good to see you posting again. First, I think Baptists and Presbyterians both agree that the act of baptism does not effect salvation; it is not about that. It is about the already existing, and yes declared, faith of the person baptized. Faith is more than believing, but it is not less; we are commanded to believe, and Christians are called believers. Certainly you do have to have a grasp of the gospel, and be able to articulate it. I’m not sure what you mean by “a powerful way”, but your profession should be stand up… Read more »
John, This thread is old and you may not see it. So I will keep it short. I think your standard for receiving the visible sign of membership in the body of Christ is far too high. First a practical concern: Anyone with a low IQ or a brain injury, or the onset of dementia would be unable to be received into the kingdom. My 10 year old has better verbal and conceptual skills than an 80 IQ adult – that is millions of Americans. We aren’t saved by our sophistication and sophisticated theological learning does not equal faith. Second,… Read more »
Demo, I’m glad you replied, but I am mildly exasperated by your insistence that I claim a sophisticated understanding of the Gospel or a complicated mental exercise is required when I went out of my way to make it clear that “…no it does not require exceptional intelligence, great learning, or understanding everything there is to know…”. Now perhaps it is my fault, because perhaps sophistication was not the best word to have used for what I mean, but the sophistication to which I referred has to do with more than just an understanding of and assent to facts –… Read more »
John, I may have misread you and applied inappropriate weight to your comment about sophistication and to to your view that baptizing a 10-year-old is like paedobaptism. I was certainly not trying to pull a gotcha. I am rather trying to understand what, in your mind/system, is required before receiving the sign and seal of baptism. I am trying to figure out where illiterate peasants, the mentally handicapped, and my grandparents with dementia fit into this system. And yes, where young children fit in too. I latched on to 10-year-old particularly because that was the age given. But any age… Read more »
John,
From me again – my church (CREC) follows the liturgical calendar, but in a pretty superficial way. We have Good Friday services but no Ash Wednesday services. We aren’t encouraged to complete a Lenten fast or really even to meditate on the season or change our personal readings to correspond.
I have found observing the season very helpful for my personal devotion and for breaking up a monotonous modern existence into something with a real visceral rhythm. Therefore my family does observe a nativity and lenten fast and a Christmas and Easter feast.
Demo,
Great to see you posting again.
My family, too, practices a Lenten season, though it is fairly light compared to Advent. It has really changed my family discipleship.
JohnM, Yes, we observe Ash Wednesday, but we are not a robust liturgical church. I am pressing it, because I see the value of using Scripture to guide our calendars and not Caesar. Like Demo mentioned about Christ Church, we open membership to Credobaptist convictions, and allow them to be full members without baptizing their children. Your observation about Baptist churches functioning as quasi-episcopal is brilliant. Something for me to chew on. Regarding dedications, that practice came about post-Reformation as a way of easing the inherent tension between having fully functioning participants in the church who openly labeled as outside… Read more »
Thanks BJ. I’m not keen on Ash Wednsday/Lent but my take is guided first of all by Romans 14:5, with me personally landing on the all-the-same side.
Christ Church (and I believe most CREC congregations) deal with this by practicing household membership. Every baptized member of a member household is a full member of the congregation, but each household gets one vote. So a husband/father, as the head of his household, represents his wife and children in any congregational decision-making. Or a single mom would represent her kids. Then when the kids grow up and establish their own households, they get their own votes.
K,
How do you guys handle it if a young lady moves out of the house as an adult, but is unmarried?
At Christ Church, if a new family comes, does the whole family have to be baptized in order to get membership? Can younger children remain unbaptized and the family can still be members?
LM,
It’s been a while, but when I was at Christ Church they accepted those who held credo-Baptist views as members. If the parents did not want to baptise their children as a matter of conscience they would still be allowed to join. If the children are old enough (and mentally competent) and not baptized they would only be baptized on a profession of faith anyway, which make the question somewhat moot for kids maybe 7 and older.
It seems like with all of the articles about polyamory that have cropped up in the last little while, the comments sections tend to devolve into arguments about the degree to which polygamy is or is not a sin, biblically. The point that polyamory is a VERY different thing from the kind of polygamy the Bible describes needs to be made much more clearly, as this conversation proceeds. While that shouldn’t affect how we ultimately come down on the issues, it would spare a lot of wasted time and confusion created by arguing on an incorrect premise about what we’re… Read more »
My thoughts exactly….
Polyamory is anything goes…as long as it’s consensual. Multiple wives, multiple husbands, open marriages, extra-marital sex, cuckoldry allowed/approved by the husband, etc. That’s way more than the polygamy of Biblical times.
And the kinds of polyamory that are getting the attention just now are three or more people in a *single* relationship, not one person in a relationship with two or more people, each of whom are only in a relationship with one other person. It’s not just more, it involves more perverted practices and bizarre relationships.
Not to rag on John, because I think that was a perceptive question and gave Doug an opportunity to make an excellent point, but I think we make the same mistake a lot when a marriage falls apart because one spouse has been deceived in the character and/or spiritual condition of the other. We think, “Well, they just should have been more careful, how could they not see THAT problem coming?” Absolutely, that can be the case. And then again, people exercising discernment in faith is no guarantee that really good deceivers won’t get away with things at times. We’re… Read more »
Re Clueless or Complicit and the 3-5 years until the backlash — that’s already starting to happen. It’s gotten so bad that even people inside the LGBT+ circle are running for the exits….
https://youtu.be/mzYHBPTfXCI
Doug Wilson,
“Polygamy and polyandry are not even close to being equivalent.”
Wrong! I would expect a wordsmith to understand that polygamy and polyandry truly are closely related. Specifically, polyandry is a subset of polygamy. Polygyny (multiple wives of the same husband) is also a subset of polygamy. I think you meant polygyny and polyandry are not even close to being equivalent.
And polyamory is yet another thing, where all the partners are, or at least potentially are, in relationship with all the other partners.
Much as I hate putting a fine point on it, think, not Leah allowing Zilpah into Jacob’s bed, but Jacob and Leah inviting Zilpah into THEIRS. This is unheard of biblically.
But it’s not mentioned. It’s not in the Bible. I didn’t say it didn’t *happen* anywhere “back then.” It’s just unknown in the Bible as such. It’s not something you can use biblical examples of to argue for or against anything today.
Megan, scruples can certainly indicate an underlying spiritual problem, but in the presence of a clinical diagnosis, I think they may be the result of intrusive and unwanted thoughts causing an anxiety disorder to spiral out of control. Generalized (free-floating) anxiety is a hungry monster latching on to whatever will feed it and make it grow. It can make someone who worries a bit about getting sick refuse to leave the house because of coronavirus. It can make someone who worries about fire check every electrical appliance ten times before going to bed. And it can make a person who… Read more »
Effexor has helped over the years. Counseling has helped over the years. And, as with anything, prayer and trusting God’s promises have helped calm my fears. I appreciate what Doug said, “To the extent that this is a true spiritual problem …” because it seems like he’s acknowledging my fallen body as a contributing force (I grew up in an independent fundy church of the Bob Jones University vein where medication was frowned upon) so it’s refreshing. Your feedback, Jill, is also refreshing. Thanks to you both for taking the time to respond to my letter.
The biggest E on the eye chart concerning polygamy involves converting Muslims. That is why we have to have our ducks in a row on this. When a Muslim man is converted and he has three wives, should he divorce two or stay married to all three? If I understand Doug’s position, if the wives are all willing to stay with him, he should stay married to all three, with the hope of leading them all into the Kingdom and raise his children to become Christian and monogamous. I think that is the Biblical position, because the Lord does hate… Read more »
DCL, they are legally married. The best scenario I see would be all three women converting, staying married to their husband, and raising their children to be Christians. Their children would be monogamous. Obviously the husband would never be eligible for church office, but God takes you where you are, not where you should be. Of course, that is the best scenario. In many cases, the woman would be thrown out for converting, or worse.
Hey Doug,
Could you explain why a husband having multiple wives would be treated differently than a wife having multiple husbands?
Thanks,
KM
[…] Show Outline with LinksSorting Out PolygamyRe. Cast Iron Kites – I have been baffled for some time by the evangelical inclination to talk of polygamy as a worse perversion than homosexuality. Christ states polygamy to be a corruption of “the beginning” and the Christian is clearly barred from it. But as best I can tell from Scripture, a man with two wives is treated as married to both – allowed, let us say, for a time for hardness of heart – while as we all know calling a homosexual affair a “marriage” is an affront not just to God… Read more »
“if that had been too little” – if the dominion or kingdom was too small.
BTW- the word “wives” may also be rendered ‘Saul’s women’, which points to David’s marriage to Michal.
“Hyper-scrupulous people are as sinful as they think they are, they just aren’t sinful where they think they are.”
Just so. Further, we’re all much worse than we know. We don’t know how far short we fall of the glory of God because don’t really know how glorious he is. We know enough, maybe, for now, but nothing like we will later. No amount of introspection, friendly or hostile, harsh or gentle, can make us know God better.
Doug, Thanks for the “heads up” on the Preaching as Reminding” book by Jeffrey Authurs. I have never been accused of preaching (to my knowledge) until recently. However, like my Mother (a librarian) and my Father (a postmaster), I too worked in the information storage, retrieval and delivery industry (rotational magnetic memory i.e. disk drives). Additionally, both of my parents were raised by oldsters. My Mom by her maternal grandparents. My Dad’s mother was widowed when her eldest son was 23 and my Dad was two. Consequently they both had lots of stories, first and second hand from parents and… Read more »
Polygamy in the Bible was a downstream version of “stealing fruit” in Eden. Adam’s sin brought barrenness upon the land and the womb, but these curses were mitigated to some degree by the sacrifices of Adam’s sons. Of course, Cain’s murder of Abel led to a personal curse of barrenness of land. Lamech’s polygamy and the intermarriage of the Sethite and Cainite lines were presumably to get around the curse upon the womb. Polygamy was a means of establishing an immediate dynasty, just as Cain’s city was a premature civilisation—all the gifts and none of the godliness to sustain it.… Read more »
I once held that polygamy (a man with more than one wife) was sinful. But after considering it deeply, I can no longer hold that view as a legitimate biblical view. I have a high view of God’s moral law (Ps. 19:7-11, Psalm 119) . There are several moral laws that give implicit approval of polygamy (Lev. 18:18, Ex. 21:7-11, Deut. 21:15-17, Deut. 25:5-10) This conclusion is inescapable. God’s law is holy and perfect. It does not allow for any sin at all, nor does it condescend to sinful man’s desires. Especially not sinful sexual desires. 23,000 people fell in… Read more »