Polygamy and the Search For Morality
Polygamy and the Search for Morality
In a recent article, the New York Times had several “thinkers” discuss the possibility for legalization of polygamy in the USA. With the Federal Court decision in Utah striking down a longstanding anti-polygamy statute, new questions arise, at least in the minds of the New York Times’ editors, as to whether polygamy should be permitted in the US. Among the many people commenting on the “thinkers” discussion were those who supported polygamy as just another freedom, those who thought it violated women’s rights, those who were offended because little mention was given to the possibility of a woman having several husbands, and those who declared the subject to violate God’s laws of marriage. I found most of the comments wanting for a variety of reasons and attempted my own stab at addressing the subject:
“I am always torn between my appreciation for liberty and my fear of savagery. As our society moves from the relative moral certainty of the Bible, we will continue to see judgments made on the basis of "fairness" rather than right and wrong. This will, inevitably, lead to all kinds of legally acceptable and morally reprehensible behavior that will make even the most liberal Times readers of today blanch. Times readers of tomorrow, living in that declining morality, will suffer no such dismay, I'm sure. After all, we don't miss what we never knew.
I don't see this as a failure of society. Society as a whole, like the people who form it, is nearly always seeking ways to justify whatever it wants at the moment. No, I see it as a failure of Christianity, and Christians, to make the case for biblical truth. As we gradually return to our pagan past, Christians will have the opportunity to live as their forebears did, attempting to stay clear of the state, and the persecution the state stands for, and bring the message of salvation and healing to those overwhelmed by the state's increasingly destructive "fairness." Perhaps then Christians will regain the "power of the Gospel message," make a compelling case for God's way, and see a renewed society that desires to live according to God's Word. Until that time comes, the slippery slope is likely to grow steeper every day.
I offer this thought to my liberal friends, ‘Be careful what you wish for, you may get it!’"
In response to my post, I received the following comment from “Sandra.”
“Polygamy is featured in Christian scripture. Concubinage is OK too.”
I responded to Sandra as follows:
“Sandra,
Both polygamy and concubinage are specifically rejected in the New Testament. I believe you are relying upon the Old Testament, where such acts were also described as being against God's will. However, God is pretty patient with people and, so, many had multiple wives and concubines, with all of the attendant negative consequences.
Although not mentioned, to my knowledge, in the New Testament, early Christian churches may have contained some believers who had multiple wives. This was a result of pagans being converted to Christianity and those converts already having had several wives. It was better to accept the family than not. This has also occurred in societies where Christian missionaries brought the gospel in the last couple of centuries. However, the Christian children of those converts did not practice polygamy.
The New Testament, which is the founding text for Christianity, is replete with admonitions to have only one wife or husband and, in particular, all church leaders are to have one wife.”
Although Sandra never replied, I did receive the following comment from another reader in Wisconsin.
“Excellent points, Untimely in the ashes of our current "enlightened age" a Phoenix will be raised up but it may be a while”
Because the Times limits readers’ comments to 1,500 characters, it is difficult to cover all aspects of a topic. Had I the relatively unlimited space afforded by Weekly Southern Arts, I would have mentioned that the “relative moral certainty” noted in my first comment is relative because there is disagreement even among Christians as to what is objectively right and wrong. That is, what is moral and immoral.
In a recent article, the New York Times had several “thinkers” discuss the possibility for legalization of polygamy in the USA. With the Federal Court decision in Utah striking down a longstanding anti-polygamy statute, new questions arise, at least in the minds of the New York Times’ editors, as to whether polygamy should be permitted in the US. Among the many people commenting on the “thinkers” discussion were those who supported polygamy as just another freedom, those who thought it violated women’s rights, those who were offended because little mention was given to the possibility of a woman having several husbands, and those who declared the subject to violate God’s laws of marriage. I found most of the comments wanting for a variety of reasons and attempted my own stab at addressing the subject:
“I am always torn between my appreciation for liberty and my fear of savagery. As our society moves from the relative moral certainty of the Bible, we will continue to see judgments made on the basis of "fairness" rather than right and wrong. This will, inevitably, lead to all kinds of legally acceptable and morally reprehensible behavior that will make even the most liberal Times readers of today blanch. Times readers of tomorrow, living in that declining morality, will suffer no such dismay, I'm sure. After all, we don't miss what we never knew.
I don't see this as a failure of society. Society as a whole, like the people who form it, is nearly always seeking ways to justify whatever it wants at the moment. No, I see it as a failure of Christianity, and Christians, to make the case for biblical truth. As we gradually return to our pagan past, Christians will have the opportunity to live as their forebears did, attempting to stay clear of the state, and the persecution the state stands for, and bring the message of salvation and healing to those overwhelmed by the state's increasingly destructive "fairness." Perhaps then Christians will regain the "power of the Gospel message," make a compelling case for God's way, and see a renewed society that desires to live according to God's Word. Until that time comes, the slippery slope is likely to grow steeper every day.
I offer this thought to my liberal friends, ‘Be careful what you wish for, you may get it!’"
In response to my post, I received the following comment from “Sandra.”
“Polygamy is featured in Christian scripture. Concubinage is OK too.”
I responded to Sandra as follows:
“Sandra,
Both polygamy and concubinage are specifically rejected in the New Testament. I believe you are relying upon the Old Testament, where such acts were also described as being against God's will. However, God is pretty patient with people and, so, many had multiple wives and concubines, with all of the attendant negative consequences.
Although not mentioned, to my knowledge, in the New Testament, early Christian churches may have contained some believers who had multiple wives. This was a result of pagans being converted to Christianity and those converts already having had several wives. It was better to accept the family than not. This has also occurred in societies where Christian missionaries brought the gospel in the last couple of centuries. However, the Christian children of those converts did not practice polygamy.
The New Testament, which is the founding text for Christianity, is replete with admonitions to have only one wife or husband and, in particular, all church leaders are to have one wife.”
Although Sandra never replied, I did receive the following comment from another reader in Wisconsin.
“Excellent points, Untimely in the ashes of our current "enlightened age" a Phoenix will be raised up but it may be a while”
Because the Times limits readers’ comments to 1,500 characters, it is difficult to cover all aspects of a topic. Had I the relatively unlimited space afforded by Weekly Southern Arts, I would have mentioned that the “relative moral certainty” noted in my first comment is relative because there is disagreement even among Christians as to what is objectively right and wrong. That is, what is moral and immoral.
Conservative Christians often adhere to a simple list of rights and wrongs listed by, among others, the Apostles Paul, Peter and John. Although I doubt that any of these men intended to make a list of right and wrongs that was to be taken as a comprehensive statement on what is good or bad behavior, that is the way in which their lists are used by many. Reading these lists, I believe they were merely giving some examples of actions that they thought did or did not further the goal of bringing others into the church and maintaining order within the fellowship.
Moderate Christians, often referred to as “Mainline” Christians, tend to take a more thoughtful approach to right and wrong, recognizing that “There but for the grace of God go I.” Their moderation makes them easier to deal with, and a lot less judgmental of others, but it also can slip into having no standards of any kind pretty easily if not rigorously guarded.
Liberal Christians tend to accept Jesus’ statement that we are to love God and love one another and otherwise not worry too much about the various sins noted by the Apostles or, for that matter, Jesus. Consequently, they are the most accepting of any Christian groups of those practicing the activities warned against by the Apostles in the New Testament.
Note that all of these groups largely dismiss the Levitical law found in the Torah of the Jews. However, when it suits them, each group can, and does, pluck individual laws from these writings to support their own legalistic understandings and desires. Conservatives often use Leviticus 17 to support their opposition to homosexuality, Moderates may do that as well and they and even liberals will often preach tithing as a necessary part of Christian life (You have to pay the church bills somehow!). Liberals generally turn to the Levitical law to mock Conservatives, citing laws that none of the Christian groups adheres to and suggesting that the Conservatives should keep those laws too if they want to condemn homosexuality or other sexual sins.
It has often been said (because I say it) that children are all lawyers. When faced with a “No,” children will come up with a series of arguments why their desired “Yes” should be granted by their parents. Their arguments can be quite clever and often focus on the presumed hypocrisy of the parent. “You let Johnny do it! Why can’t I?”
Churches, and the Christians who comprise them, are no different than those children as they seek to justify their desires. Still, I believe it is possible to discern God’s will in His Word. If we seek Him with a sincere heart and desire to know His will rather than justify our own desires, He will open the scriptures to us and we will be given understanding of His way. It is only in that way, being led by the Holy Spirit and taking the time to earnestly study the Bible with a knowledge of both its history and context, that we will come to a proper understanding of morality, at least as is stated there.
In the instance of polygamy, I can find no support for it in the Bible. Sure, I can find many accounts of polygamy in the sacred text, but I never find where God declared that polygamy was a good idea. On the other hand, I can find many admonitions against it in both the Old and New Testaments. Like divorce, a human choice that, in Malachi, God declares that He hates, polygamy appears to be a human choice that God tolerates because of the hardness of man’s heart.
If you accept the Bible as an authoritative text on God’s will, there is precious little room to advocate for polygamy. However, our society has been moving away from a Bible-based morality for some fifty years. We are now at a time when such “traditional” thinking is openly mocked by the “intelligentsia” in our society. They are smart enough to see the effects of immorality on the society, but too proud (and, I suspect, too personally lustful and rebellious) to admit the benefits of biblical morals. If they mourn the loss of morality, it is only in terms of a hazily remembered yesteryear when people cared for one another and were united in seeking the common good—a fuzzy lost utopia. The actual beliefs that fostered that sense of societal unity a generation ago are dismissed as ignorant superstition or fantasy. Indeed, those “intelligentsia” who do refer to the Bible, like Sandra above, do so in ignorance of its overall message and even its particulars. Despite considering themselves the well-educated leaders of a planned utopian future, they commit the basic error of cherry picking verses to serve their own ends, thus making themselves as foolish as the most ignorant fundamentalist Christian they mock.
Yes, the hubris of the progressive-minded left and right causes them to dismiss the Bible except for a couple of statements taken out of context. Here are those statements:
First, “Judge not lest you be judged.” This statement of Jesus from the Gospel of Matthew is used in an effort to shut up Christians and others who object to immoral activity. It is assumed by the modern, post-Christian “intelligentsia” that Jesus was telling us to not judge others’ behavior. Had they taken the time to actually read the Bible instead of simply quoting a talking point they heard on MSNBC, these geniuses would know that their use of Jesus’ words is completely out of context. Jesus was not saying we shouldn’t make moral judgments, He was saying that, if you choose to make such judgments, be prepared for the same standard to be applied to you! In other words, Jesus was denouncing hypocrisy and advocating integrity in our daily living.
Second, “God is love.” This description of Almighty God is often quoted by the same ignorant “intelligentsia” in a similar fashion to "Judge not lest you be judged." That is, to stop someone from suggesting there is a moral standard that should be maintained. It won’t work on an atheist, of course, but it’s a handy tool to use when confronted by a Christian. It only works if the Christian is as ignorant as the one throwing out the quote from I John. Simply put, the Apostle John never suggested that God wasn’t a righteous judge of human behavior who, as Creator of everything, is entitled to judge His creation’s actions; he simply emphasized the love that God has for His creation. If those who seek to use this verse in their defense actually knew the context for the verse, they would cease using it, as it undercuts their effort at self-justification. John’s point in this passage was to help Christians distinguish between those who were holy and those who were worldly and selfish. When he says that God is love, he is not suggesting that immoral behavior is acceptable, but is plainly stating that, in His great love for us, God made a way for us to be forgiven for our immoral acts through Jesus’ propitiation for our sins (Given that many of those who attempt to use one or both of these misquotes from the Bible deny the existence of sin, it is remarkable that they would so blindly grab a statement that is all about seeking redemption from our own sins!).
Moderate Christians, often referred to as “Mainline” Christians, tend to take a more thoughtful approach to right and wrong, recognizing that “There but for the grace of God go I.” Their moderation makes them easier to deal with, and a lot less judgmental of others, but it also can slip into having no standards of any kind pretty easily if not rigorously guarded.
Liberal Christians tend to accept Jesus’ statement that we are to love God and love one another and otherwise not worry too much about the various sins noted by the Apostles or, for that matter, Jesus. Consequently, they are the most accepting of any Christian groups of those practicing the activities warned against by the Apostles in the New Testament.
Note that all of these groups largely dismiss the Levitical law found in the Torah of the Jews. However, when it suits them, each group can, and does, pluck individual laws from these writings to support their own legalistic understandings and desires. Conservatives often use Leviticus 17 to support their opposition to homosexuality, Moderates may do that as well and they and even liberals will often preach tithing as a necessary part of Christian life (You have to pay the church bills somehow!). Liberals generally turn to the Levitical law to mock Conservatives, citing laws that none of the Christian groups adheres to and suggesting that the Conservatives should keep those laws too if they want to condemn homosexuality or other sexual sins.
It has often been said (because I say it) that children are all lawyers. When faced with a “No,” children will come up with a series of arguments why their desired “Yes” should be granted by their parents. Their arguments can be quite clever and often focus on the presumed hypocrisy of the parent. “You let Johnny do it! Why can’t I?”
Churches, and the Christians who comprise them, are no different than those children as they seek to justify their desires. Still, I believe it is possible to discern God’s will in His Word. If we seek Him with a sincere heart and desire to know His will rather than justify our own desires, He will open the scriptures to us and we will be given understanding of His way. It is only in that way, being led by the Holy Spirit and taking the time to earnestly study the Bible with a knowledge of both its history and context, that we will come to a proper understanding of morality, at least as is stated there.
In the instance of polygamy, I can find no support for it in the Bible. Sure, I can find many accounts of polygamy in the sacred text, but I never find where God declared that polygamy was a good idea. On the other hand, I can find many admonitions against it in both the Old and New Testaments. Like divorce, a human choice that, in Malachi, God declares that He hates, polygamy appears to be a human choice that God tolerates because of the hardness of man’s heart.
If you accept the Bible as an authoritative text on God’s will, there is precious little room to advocate for polygamy. However, our society has been moving away from a Bible-based morality for some fifty years. We are now at a time when such “traditional” thinking is openly mocked by the “intelligentsia” in our society. They are smart enough to see the effects of immorality on the society, but too proud (and, I suspect, too personally lustful and rebellious) to admit the benefits of biblical morals. If they mourn the loss of morality, it is only in terms of a hazily remembered yesteryear when people cared for one another and were united in seeking the common good—a fuzzy lost utopia. The actual beliefs that fostered that sense of societal unity a generation ago are dismissed as ignorant superstition or fantasy. Indeed, those “intelligentsia” who do refer to the Bible, like Sandra above, do so in ignorance of its overall message and even its particulars. Despite considering themselves the well-educated leaders of a planned utopian future, they commit the basic error of cherry picking verses to serve their own ends, thus making themselves as foolish as the most ignorant fundamentalist Christian they mock.
Yes, the hubris of the progressive-minded left and right causes them to dismiss the Bible except for a couple of statements taken out of context. Here are those statements:
First, “Judge not lest you be judged.” This statement of Jesus from the Gospel of Matthew is used in an effort to shut up Christians and others who object to immoral activity. It is assumed by the modern, post-Christian “intelligentsia” that Jesus was telling us to not judge others’ behavior. Had they taken the time to actually read the Bible instead of simply quoting a talking point they heard on MSNBC, these geniuses would know that their use of Jesus’ words is completely out of context. Jesus was not saying we shouldn’t make moral judgments, He was saying that, if you choose to make such judgments, be prepared for the same standard to be applied to you! In other words, Jesus was denouncing hypocrisy and advocating integrity in our daily living.
Second, “God is love.” This description of Almighty God is often quoted by the same ignorant “intelligentsia” in a similar fashion to "Judge not lest you be judged." That is, to stop someone from suggesting there is a moral standard that should be maintained. It won’t work on an atheist, of course, but it’s a handy tool to use when confronted by a Christian. It only works if the Christian is as ignorant as the one throwing out the quote from I John. Simply put, the Apostle John never suggested that God wasn’t a righteous judge of human behavior who, as Creator of everything, is entitled to judge His creation’s actions; he simply emphasized the love that God has for His creation. If those who seek to use this verse in their defense actually knew the context for the verse, they would cease using it, as it undercuts their effort at self-justification. John’s point in this passage was to help Christians distinguish between those who were holy and those who were worldly and selfish. When he says that God is love, he is not suggesting that immoral behavior is acceptable, but is plainly stating that, in His great love for us, God made a way for us to be forgiven for our immoral acts through Jesus’ propitiation for our sins (Given that many of those who attempt to use one or both of these misquotes from the Bible deny the existence of sin, it is remarkable that they would so blindly grab a statement that is all about seeking redemption from our own sins!).
Our society is changing. The hypocrisy of the past, Christians supporting and justifying Jim Crow laws, denouncing and ridiculing unwed mothers, homosexuals, etc. has led to a wholesale discarding of traditional morality. In its place, we have adopted a standard that is largely built on the notion that, if it feels good, do it. As a conservative Libertarian in my political leanings, I completely understand this attitude and, frankly, as someone who has participated in Christian churches over many years, I understand the distaste for hypocrisy. However, I believe it is quite possible, and very desirable, to have moral standards for right and wrong and apply them lovingly and with integrity. Had the church been consistent in doing this, perhaps we would not find ourselves as a nation in the position we are now in.
As I noted in my comments to the Times, I see the lack of morality so prevalent currently as a failure of Christianity, not a failure of the society. Society is merely whatever people agree upon as a general consensus for living together. For Christian morality to be generally accepted by society, the people forming that society must generally believe in and accept that morality as their standard. Long before our cultural standards of morality fell, the hypocrisy of the church was already undercutting those standards. If anything, society was slow to catch on to the game!
It is often said that it takes a lifetime to earn a good reputation and a second to lose it. Christianity is currently suffering from a loss of reputation due to lacking integrity. Non-Christians may be wrong in their understanding of biblical texts, but they can see hypocrisy as well as anyone. I fear that we will have to suffer even more of a drop in societal standards before Christianity in the US recovers its former vitality and legitimacy. However, rather than greet this possibility with dismay, I look forward to the victories a reinvigorated church will experience and thank God that I may yet be a part of it.
So, to Sandra and those like her, I say that I believe everyone should do what they understand to be right. However, as rational beings, we should not act upon mere feelings without thought for the consequences. And, we might consider seeking the collected wisdom of mankind contained in books such as the Bible. Thousands of years of human experience is presented there and, even if you don’t believe there is a God, it is worthwhile to consider the hard-won wisdom contained in its pages. It is the foundational book for our culture and, if you care for what this nation has achieved, you will want to know what our forebears believed and why they believed it. It may surprise you!
Thomas A. Hall
As I noted in my comments to the Times, I see the lack of morality so prevalent currently as a failure of Christianity, not a failure of the society. Society is merely whatever people agree upon as a general consensus for living together. For Christian morality to be generally accepted by society, the people forming that society must generally believe in and accept that morality as their standard. Long before our cultural standards of morality fell, the hypocrisy of the church was already undercutting those standards. If anything, society was slow to catch on to the game!
It is often said that it takes a lifetime to earn a good reputation and a second to lose it. Christianity is currently suffering from a loss of reputation due to lacking integrity. Non-Christians may be wrong in their understanding of biblical texts, but they can see hypocrisy as well as anyone. I fear that we will have to suffer even more of a drop in societal standards before Christianity in the US recovers its former vitality and legitimacy. However, rather than greet this possibility with dismay, I look forward to the victories a reinvigorated church will experience and thank God that I may yet be a part of it.
So, to Sandra and those like her, I say that I believe everyone should do what they understand to be right. However, as rational beings, we should not act upon mere feelings without thought for the consequences. And, we might consider seeking the collected wisdom of mankind contained in books such as the Bible. Thousands of years of human experience is presented there and, even if you don’t believe there is a God, it is worthwhile to consider the hard-won wisdom contained in its pages. It is the foundational book for our culture and, if you care for what this nation has achieved, you will want to know what our forebears believed and why they believed it. It may surprise you!
Thomas A. Hall
|
|
|