And Onto Polygamy

Imagine seeing this article from CNN just a decade or two ago.  Bet you wouldn't have seen it.  Or thought of it.  This stuff used to be on the extreme fringes of society, but now, it's making opinion headlines.

And it is little wonder.

Ethics in our nation has made a monumental shift over the years.  I have argued (based on the work of Richard Neuhaus) that our nation's great experiment was to have our laws founded on Judeo-Christian principles without establishing Christianity as the formal, national religion.  There were numerous reasons for this, and I will not go into those again.

What has progressively happened is a tectonic shift away from those Judeo-Christian principles and an ethics based in science/reason. 

I personally am not worried about this shift in our nation.  The Church in all of its expressions has existed and even thrived in cultures which were hostile to it.  And our nation is far from hostile to religious expression.  It just no longer bases much of its moral law upon it. 

Once gay marriage would have been unheard of.  Now, several states allow it, and the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. 

Polygamy is next on that slope.  Strictly adhering to the Constitution, I see nothing that can prevent polygamy laws from being struck down.  Consenting adults are basically allowed to do as they please.

Now, before anyone starts saying, "Polygamy isn't Christian."  Please, take a look at your Bible.  Polygamy is never outlawed in Scripture.  There is only one prohibition against it, and that is only for a bishop of the Church.  In fact, some of the greatest pillars of the faith in the Old Testament practiced polygamy in some form or another: Abraham, Jacob, and David to name a few.  In each case, polygamous relationships led to some pretty unhealthy results--which is one of the reasons I do not support such a thing--but it is important to note that God remained silent about such marriages.

Christian tradition in reading Scripture and seeing the negative results of polygamous marriage has discerned God's expectation for marriage to be between one man and one woman. 

In the culture which surrounds us now, I believe the Church must be a faithful witness to this in spite of the laws which change.  I believe we must be ready to argue, without anger, angst, and with respect to others who share a different view, for the sanctity of the one man/one woman relationship--allowing for the brokenness of relationships and the reality of divorce; never condoning it as God's will, but offering grace and mercy.  We must be ready to defend our position with much more than, "God said it should be that way, and the Bible says so too." 

Remember, the Bible never condemns polygamy.  If we meet someone who knows what the Bible says, we will lose the argument right then and there.  It is important to know the reasons behind our teaching, and I encourage everyone to study up on the matter.

We will need to know our stuff more and more as our culture and laws become more and more secular and reason based.

Great Quote About Marriage

Found in this Youtube video from the Veritas Forum (41:13):

Georgia Tech Professor Vincent Mooney: "Marriage isn't just 50-50.  It's 100-100.  Everyone gives everything you can."

The Reason for Marriage: A Christian Perspective

It is not enough when one simply points out the flaws of a given perspective when it comes to a particular issue.  One must also offer an alternative point of view, and so, in regards to yesterday's post where I put forth the reasons a basis for marriage from a secular perspective fail, I must now offer the alternative.

Christianity has two main figures who address marriage at length: Jesus and Paul.  I will begin with Jesus as He is the Author and Perfector of the faith:

3 Some Pharisees came to him [Jesus], and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ ⁴He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”, ⁵and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? ⁶So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ ⁷They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ ⁸He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. ⁹And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.’--Matthew 19:3-9

Jesus teaches against divorce by referring to Genesis chapter 2.  I too will head that direction so that Jesus' words may be understood more clearly in regards to marriage, but first we must take a slight detour and examine St. Paul:

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. ⁹But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. 10 To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband ¹¹(but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.--1 Corinthians 7

Interestingly enough, Paul gives, as a reason for marriage, the quenching of the fires of lust.  Get married so that you can have sex which does not conflict with the commands of God.  Now, this might seem a bit absurd as the only reason given for marriage, but we must also note Paul ties his teaching to Jesus'.  So, we must examine in depth what Jesus says about divorce and why it is not permissable except in the cases of unfaithfulness.

One last tangent: there are those who claim that sex is sinful unless it is for procreation.  Paul doesn't come close to this in his statement.  If any of my readers ever thought this, I assure you, it is not scriptural.  Go have some fun.

Onto heavier matters...

Jesus teaches quite clearly marriage is to be between one man and one woman and that the bond should not be broken by anything man does.  Why is Jesus so strong on this teaching, leaving very little wiggle room?

Examining the text from Genesis chapter 2 is important here:

18 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ ¹⁹So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. ²⁰The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. ²¹So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. ²²And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. ²³Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.’ ²⁴Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.--Genesis 2:18-24

There are a number of things of import in this passage.  Number one: While we can certainly live alone, it is not the preferred option.  We are meant to be a communal creature--individuals living in community, and the very foundation of that community is the marriage relationship.  Number two: we live in relationship to creation.  God began the process of community by bringing the animals to the man to name, and while none was a suitable helper, man still was in relationship with them.

And now, we come to a very important part: woman was taken out of man.  Please do not assume this means women have one more rib than men.  They don't.  Perhaps man was originally created with an extra--I really don't know.  What I do know is the importance of that act of removing part of the man and creating woman out of it.

For one must think like the ancient Jews to understand the importance of this act of God.  For the ancient Jews put a great value on the concept of wholeness.  God was considered the ultimate of wholeness, completeness if you will, and things which were whole were considered closer to God.  (Incidentally, the concept of shalom means wholeness.)  When man's rib was taken, he was no longer whole.  He was no longer one flesh.  How could he recover his wholeness?  How could he recover being one flesh?

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.--Genesis 2:24

It is in the marriage relationship where wholeness is found.  The two, in their relationship with one another become one--united in wholeness, in shalom.  This is why Jesus puts severe restrictions on divorce.  One does not simply walk away from such a bond because these two individuals have become one, and to tear one flesh apart not only is painful, but it destroys wholeness and shalom.  What God has joined together...

This is why the Roman Catholic Church honors marriage as a sacrament.  The mysterious joining together of two individuals into one flesh by God's Word indeed is a wondrous mystery.  (Lutherans do not consider marriage a sacrament because while there is command from God's Word, there is not a physical sign attached to it.)

This concept of wholeness is actually referred to again by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6 and gives further credence to the Christian stance of saving sex for the marriage bed:

¹⁶Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, ‘The two shall be one flesh.’

The Christian basis for marriage is the belief that wholeness, shalom is achieved in this relationship.  It is not to be entered into flippantly, but with the knowledge something very important is going on.  The relationship should not be ended without very, very good cause (unfaithfulness, in my estimation, can also be extended to abusive situations).

So, what does viewing marriage in this fashion do?

1. It handles both the couples who have and do not have children.
2. It handles the emotional aspect of companionship.
3. It allows for the economics of marriage.
4. As it stems from the Judeo-Christian tradition, it also imposes the Judeo-Christian boundaries on healthy marriages.

Of course, then one must recognize the place of polygamy in the Judeo-Christian tradition.  The Bible never out and out declares polygamy a sin.  In fact, there are notable heroes of the faith who practiced it and without a peep from God or a prophet sent to tell them they were wrong.  One could argue that polygamy indeed is sanctioned by the Bible.

Yet, I personally would not go that far.  In 99% of the cases, polygamous relationships in Scripture turn out badly.  Sarah and Hagar were not the model of wives who got along.  Jacob's favoritism of Rachel's children over Leah's caused massive strife among the children.  David's family went into open war.  Solomon's heathen wives led him astray and into worshiping false gods.  In building a case, I wouldn't recommend polygamy in the least.

However, with that one caveat, I believe a faith based approach to marriage serves as a much better approach than a secular approach.

Why Secular Reasons for Marriage Fail

Why get married?  What are the reasons for marriage?

These questions are important in light of the recent debate surrounding homosexual marriage.  Of course, the issue for many revolves around individual rights, but what are those rights based upon?   In the U.S., of course, those rights are the U.S. Constitution, especially the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  So where does marriage fall?  What is the purpose of marriage?

Secular reasoning in this area falls far short.

First, there is, what I call, the biological, evolutionary, social construct model.   Marriage evolved as an institution to provide a safer environment for the care of children.  For the survival of our species, especially since our young take much longer to develop to the point where they can take care of ourselves, a stable environment was needed to ensure this could happen.  Since it took a male and a female to produce offspring, emotional attachments evolved between the two so they would be better able to care for their children long term. 

In our day and age, this raises some problematic issues: what happens if a couple cannot or chooses not to have children?  What happens when children are raised and are on their own?  Is the purpose of marriage then relegated to the trash bin?  In our time and place, this model falls short.

Second, there is, what I call, the emotional satisfaction/fulfillment model.  I define this as individuals entering into a social agreement for mutual companionship which fulfills emotional needs.  As people we need both our individualism AND relationship.  Marriage gives us an avenue to fulfill those relational needs with another person who we enjoy being with and receive a sense of wholeness with.

The problematic issues arise in a couple of areas: 1. What happens when individuals no longer sense fulfillment with the person they are currently married to?  The answer for couples who believe marriage falls within this category is divorce.  We know divorce has devastating effects on people.  More than a few times I have heard people comment, "Divorce is like death, but worse."  The emotional toll is terrible often leading to resentment of another person, resentment of the opposite sex, and emotional barriers which prevent deep friendships/relationships.  And this is if children are not involved.  If there are children, a whole 'nother can of worms is opened. 

Of course, there are amenable divorces, and people are often free, and they do pursue more relationships and marriages.  In fact, a statistic often cited--50% of all marriages end in divorce--is somewhat misleading because quite a few of those divorces are committed by people who have married, divorced, remarried, and divorced again.  Why?  The basis of their marriages is self-fulfillment, and once the sense of this is gone with one individual, it's time to move on to another.

2. What are the limits on such self-fulfillment and emotional satisfaction?  If marriage is simply about self-fulfillment and the need for emotional companionship, why limit such fulfillment to two individuals?  Is there then an argument against polygamy?  Further, is there an argument against an incestuous marriage?  If a two individuals are not going to have children, and a they get a great sense of self-fulfillment in their relationship even though they are closely related, what does it matter?  Prohibitions against polygamy and incest vanish.

Third, there is the economic benefit model to marriage.  When people get married, they enjoy certain legal benefits.  This is all well and good, but again, what are the limits on who and how many persons an individual marries?  If economics drives the reasons to get married, we run into the same issues as number 2 above.  There is no reasonable basis to deny polygamous or incestuous relationships.

Now, if a person is comfortable with polygamy, incest, and higher divorce rates, then the personal/self-fulfillment model and the economic models could be considered decent secular reasons for marriage.  However, if such things are abhorrent--in the case of polygamy and incest or something to be lessened because of the emotional toll it exacts on people and children, then there are no good secular reasons for marriage.

In fact, for people of faith, the reason for marriage runs much deeper, and I have discussed this before here.  Yet, such commentary is often left out of the public debate over marriage.  It is unfortunate, in my estimation, because relegating this debate to only secular arguments leaves quite a bit to be desired.

Producing Good Fruit

    This past week, the Supreme Court of the U.S. made several decisions which upset half of our nation.  It’s not surprising considering the polarizing times we live in.  Of course, one of the ones that piqued the interest of many was the striking down of the Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as between one man and one woman.  This was either a cause for great celebration or of great mourning depending upon one’s particular perspective.  Depending upon where one stands, one either believes our country took a great step toward equality or has added further grease on the railway to hell.

    Most of you know where I stand on this particular issue.  If you have not read it in my blog, you have probably heard it.  And if you haven’t heard it and would like me to tell you, I will be happy to talk to you and explain where I stand and why; however, I do not believe this is the time or place to do such things.  What I wish to deal with this morning is something related but a bit different.  I would like to wrestle with the question of how the church is called to work in and with a society that does not share its particular worldview.  Now what do I mean by that?  Let me explain by taking one avenue in the Supreme Court’s decision regarding marriage.

    Historically, the Church has come to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.  Now, this is not the only kind of marriage found in the Bible–we can do an at length Bible study on that sometime if you like–in fact, I actually just did one where we touched on such matters.  Most of the Christian church adheres to this definition, and those that do not are actually in the vast minority.  So, the question arises for such churches, “How does the church respond when society embraces a very different understanding of marriage?  What does the church do in such cases?”

●    Does it rush out to register tons of like minded voters to change government by ballot?

●    Does it send people out onto the street corners to warn about breaking God’s laws?

●    Does it seek to lobby government officials to pass laws which are in accord with its particular understanding of marriage?

●    Does it crawl into a hole and pretend the rest of society is wrong and that it alone holds the truth? 

●    Does it refuse to engage the surrounding culture and disassociate itself from it because it feels the surrounding culture is a horrid influence?

In some way, the church throughout history has embraced any one of these particular methods of response, but this morning I would like to argue for another way–a way which finds itself rooted and grounded in the earliest days of the Christian community before it ascended to power and prestige in the Roman empire.

    If one studies the history of the early church as it began to spread from Jerusalem and into the Roman
empire, one is struck by the fact that it began between a rock and a hard place.  The rock was Second Temple Judaism.  When the early Church proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, indeed, God incarnate who was raised from the dead, the leaders within Judaism saw this as blasphemy.  There was only one God–Yahweh–undivided who lived in the temple in the holy of holies.  Any claim outside of this–including that Jesus is Lord–was seen to be breaking the first and greatest commandment.  It was not too long before the Jewish authorities kicked the Christians out of the synagogue proclaiming that Christianity was incompatible with Judaism and was a heresy.

    This put the Christian church in a very precarious position.  For now it came up against the hard place: the Roman empire.  For, you see, the Roman empire actually tried to be a pretty tolerant place.  It accepted the practice of many and various religions within it–but those religions had to be authorized and accepted by the Roman government.  You had to be on the acceptable list.  Judaism was on that list.  Christianity was not.  This meant the Church could be justifiably persecuted within the Roman empire.  Simply by being a Christian, you could find yourself on the short end of persecution.  As I said, the early Church developed between a rock and a hard place.

    But that is not the half of it.  I don’t know how much you have studied about the Roman Empire, but it was not exactly a bastion of morality and justice–at least justice and morality as we understand it.  I am sure you have probably heard reference to the pax romana or the peace of Rome, but I wonder if you know how Rome enforced that peace?  Well, they weren’t exactly too particular about who they killed to enforce it.  And perhaps you have heard about Caligula and his reign of terror as Emperor and his wonton assassination of others before he himself was assassinated.  And in case you didn’t know where those infamous toga parties in college came from...well, let’s just say the Romans perfected such matters way before frats and sororities.

    It was into this social and political milieu the early Church was born.  And how did they handle such matters?  How did they handle such a society?  How did they strive to influence matters? 

●    Did they demand to be recognized as an acceptable religion?

●    Did they lobby the emperor or the Roman senate for acceptance?

●    Did they try to influence Roman law and change things from a legal standpoint?

I challenge you to read through the entire New Testament and find one place where they tried to do such things.  I challenge you to show one place where St. Paul, or St. Peter, or St. Stephen, or St. John admonished the Roman empire to change their laws or practices or policies so that Christianity might be accepted, acceptable, or it’s morals and understandings be accepted by the entire empire.

    You won’t find it.  At best, you will find the apostles testifying before kings and governors.  You will see them trying to convince them to become Christian, but you will not see them trying to make others follow Christ by changing governmental law.  That is simply not there.  Why?

    The early Church believed they had a mission regardless of what laws the surrounding culture enacted.  The early Church believed it had a mission regardless of the morality of the surrounding society.  The early Church had been commissioned by Jesus himself to make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and teaching everyone everything that Christ had taught.  The apostles threw themselves into this mission with reckless abandon.  Through their preaching and teaching, which was empowered by the Holy Spirit, others were convicted and began following Christ. 

    When the Christians practiced their faith and lived lives according to God’s guidance and God’s commands, the surrounding culture took notice.  Here was a group of people who voluntarily chose to live differently; move differently; talk differently; act differently; worship differently–who received no special privileges from the government or society–who at times was actively persecuted by the government and by authority.  Yet, despite this, they carried on.  They worked to tell others about Jesus no matter the circumstance.

    This is one of the reasons Christianity did and continues to flourish no matter what kind of government is in power.  The Church’s mission is not contingent upon what the government decides to do or not do.  The Church’s mission is not contingent upon what certain parts of the society embrace in regards to morality.  The Church’s mission is contingent upon the commands of Jesus Christ, and we are called to engage in it practicing a culture within a larger culture–engaging that larger culture and inviting people to leave those things behind and follow Christ.

    But we must be willing to do so ourselves.  We must be willing to embrace following Christ and practicing such faith right here and right now.  And we have guidance as to how such a community looks.  We have guidance in to how such a community functions.  We are shown what it means to produce fruit.  St. Paul reveals that fruit in the 5th chapter of the book of Galatians.  “Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, generosity, and self-control.”  These are the fruits inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Take a look around.  Are we as a church producing them?  Take a look in the mirror.  Do you see these fruits in your life?  Do you need the government or society making you produce them? 

    It doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court decides.  It doesn’t matter what laws the government passes.  We have a job.  We have a calling.  We are called to spread the good news of Jesus Christ and produce good fruit.  Stop worrying about what everyone else is doing or thinks–produce good fruit; spread the good news of Jesus.  The rest will take care of itself.  Amen.