The Bird & Babe Public House

We offer pithy pontifications by the pint-full, and the best brain-food this side of Blogsford. There's no cover charge, and it's all you can eat/drink (although we strongly encourage moderation). Like any other pub, we always appreciate a good tip.

Friday, February 24, 2006

Fidelity

At Drewdog’s prompting and his lending to me Doug Wilson’s book ‘Fidelity’ (I was too cheap to buy it), I will throw out some thoughts about plural marriage in the Bible.

First of all, I was impressed by Doug’s honest look at the subject. Many things he says in the book are radical and unlike any I have ever seen in print. Here are a few examples:


The polygamist and all his wives, if they profess faith, should be received into the membership of the church.

Polygamy cannot be considered a sin in the same way that adultery is.

… the church should forbid leadership to polygamists and reluctantly tolerate membership for polygamists.

I think these statements are good, consistent statements that do justice to the whole counsel of scripture, not just isolated sections.

There are also some arguments he makes that are very common and orthodox, but may commit some fallacies.

“We should start by understanding that monogamy is required by Creation Norm” - Hasty Generalization, Non sequitor
Perhaps polygamy was not intended before the fall, but that is irrelevant. The fall altered everything, and this side of resurrection, we cannot truly regain what was lost in the Garden:
- Most Christians don’t live in nudist colonies.
- Most Christians are not Vegetarians (Or Vegans, Gen 1:29-30)
- Incest is not allowed today as it would have been at that time.
Adam and Eve's marriage as an archetype should extend only as far as other passages (i.e. Matt 19) point to the first marriage as an ideal.
It seems strange to me that the cornerstone of such a major doctrine depends primarily on interpretation of a narrative and not a clearer, didactic teaching passage.

“If polygamy were a positive good, there would be no reason to restrict it.” (referring to the OT Law) - False Dilemma?
Food and Drink is a positive good, but there are limits.
Sleep is good, but the sluggard or lazy person is foolish.

"When a man is polygamous, it puts him in a position where he can father more children than he can be a father to." - Slippery Slope and Contradiction
If children were a positive good, there would be no reason to restrict it. Fathering children, of course, is a positive good, but Doug is adding restrictions to fathering children.

“God Forbids polygamy in the ordinances of creation and redemption, but polygamy may be tolerated only among those not suitable for leadership in the church.”
Polygamy has always been sinful...most of the time...

Much, much more could be said, but I don't want this post to get too long.

I'll just close by saying that polygamy is a tricky subject to harmonize in Scripture, and Doug Wilson's piece is the best I have read from a mainstream Christian scholar.

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You mention polygamy being a tricky subject to harmonize in scripture. But the issue didnt seem tricky. It just seems to fade out....a relic of necessity from a bygone era. No one asked Jesus how many wives a man could have at one time. Paul doesnt deal with it. It was a non-issue in NT times. 2 become 1 flesh is the basic marrital equation in the NT.

February 25, 2006 3:54 PM  
Blogger Vijay Swamidass said...

Good points, anonymous - let me try to respond.

I agree that in the NT the question isn't raised, so it seems to be an straighforward non-issue. Yet here's what I see:
1. Most Christians believe that polygyny (having multiple wives) is always wrong based on the Creation narrative. (polygyny not ok)
2. However, God blessed, regulated, commanded and promoted polygyny in the OT. (polygyny is ok)
3. Then again, monogamy seems to be assumed (in silence) in the NT. (polygyny is not ok)
4. And yet some reputatble Christians (i.e. Doug Wilson) conclude that polygamy (with restrictions) is allowable within the modern Church. (polygyny is ok, sometimes)

This makes my head spin just a bit and it is tricky (for simple minded folks like me) to piece it together.

Regarding your last point...
1 + 1 = 1 is certainly the marital equation, but take a look at this:

"Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." - 1 Cor 6:16

Paul's quotation of Genesis shows that "one flesh" occurs not only in monogamous marriage, but also in promiscuous relationships. Thus, if "one flesh" applies to sexual relationships with multiple prostitues, it should certainly apply to sexual relationships with multiple wives. In other words, "one flesh" seems to require permanent unity, not necessarily monogamy.

Of course, the whole issue of polygyny is mostly academic, but our understanding and handling of extramarital and adulterous affairs is a related and very modern topic. (for another post maybe)

BTW, its cool how the picture just magically appears when I write an book review.

February 26, 2006 12:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

THough not convinced, I will at least stipulate for sake of argument that polygamy may be permissible...what makes it profitable and beneficial as compared to monogamy?

March 01, 2006 6:57 PM  
Blogger Vijay Swamidass said...

Anonymous,
That is an interesting question and one that I have not thought about much. Looking at the OT descriptions, here are some guesses:

1) Protection of Women (and Children) - Exodus 22:16
2) Fathering Children (Heir) - Deuteronomy 25:5-6
3) Indicates God's Blessing - 2 Samuel 12:8
4) A man loves a virgin and wants to marry her - Genesis 20/Genesis 29:28-30/Song of Solomon 6:8-9

Of course, the first two reasons are only needed in a sinful world where women and children need protection and fathers die. This may explain why polygamy may not be in the original plan for marriage, but now may serve a purpose in some cases.

#3 and #4 seem strange to me (as they probably do to you), but I don't know how better to describe those passages.

Regards.

March 02, 2006 2:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again,

THe fact that none of this is reiterated in the NT causes me to consider this cultural baggage like the near eastern cosmology the OT adopots...a system God was content to work within for a time.

But now, interpreting the OT requires the NT. The Bible cant be treated like an a-historical answer book. Thought, theology, revelation all develop. Therefore, the definition of marriage as presented in the NT is, in my opinion, definitive...the final word which supercedes any previous word.

March 02, 2006 8:22 PM  
Blogger Vijay Swamidass said...

Interesting that this issue is on the front page of Yahoo today...

March 10, 2006 12:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home