-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
I've been banned from my church.
- Thread starter Hugh McBryde
- Start date
- Status
Jay, then I'm not sure I wish to associate. I'm not a "hide my light" sort of believer. I am hardly a polygynist first, and a Christian second.
PolyPride
Member
Hugh McBryde said:
I also would not want to associate if the intent of the home-based church is to keep quiet and "hide" or remain in secrecy. I'm not saying that that home-based church has to advertise to the whole world, but they may have to evangelize in some ways as Jesus' disciples did so that people will know about and understand His message, and they should do so without shame or secrecy.
Let me say, once again, that simply moving to another congregation may do the trick. I was booted out of the Seventh-day Adventist church in one congregation, but have encountered ready open acceptance in others. In one congregation, the pastor lost his church partly due to his underhanded attempts to "deal with" me, while his board members remain dear friends.
*shrug* Folks differ. Idiots abound. But so do saints! (And no, I don't mean the LDS variety! LOL)
*shrug* Folks differ. Idiots abound. But so do saints! (And no, I don't mean the LDS variety! LOL)
I have difficulty understanding how "belonging" to a "church" which not only DENIES the clear Word of God, but calls His Word "sin" is somehow better than "hiding light".
Either His Truth is worth proclaiming "boldly", or it's not worth evangelizing about. There's plenty of hypocrisy to be found in the world - such 'churches' seem to be a dime a dozen.
Either His Truth is worth proclaiming "boldly", or it's not worth evangelizing about. There's plenty of hypocrisy to be found in the world - such 'churches' seem to be a dime a dozen.
Mark,
I have this constant feeling that you're talking down to me, when you're talking to me. On top of that, I don't think you "get" what I'm getting at nor are you trying to.
There are also precious few possibilities in Central Vermont, by the way, to switch to in case anyone is wondering.
I have this constant feeling that you're talking down to me, when you're talking to me. On top of that, I don't think you "get" what I'm getting at nor are you trying to.
There are also precious few possibilities in Central Vermont, by the way, to switch to in case anyone is wondering.
jay c
New Member
I wish that the world was not such that people have to keep a low profile about certain beliefs to protect their families, but it is. Not everyone who is called to understand or to live out a particular truth is also called to preach it and defend it in the public square. Some people like you are, and you have my utmost respect for it. It can be a lonely, bitter path, and you have some extremely tough skin and extraordinary character to walk it. I am very glad that you are out there saying things that need to be said. If I were there with you in Vermont I would proudly sit (or stand!) with you as part of a congregation that teaches the truth of polygyny alongside the truth of salvation and the Kingdom of God.
But I'm not. I'm in Texas with a small congregation that teaches salvation by faith publicly and the acceptability of polygyny privately. I understand their concerns, and I share them to a certain extent. I have a history of making stands for unpopular causes, and I am acutely aware of the alienation that can come from it. For the safety of the people with whom I worship, I don't advertise our beliefs regarding polygyny. I won't lie to someone who asks, but I'm not going to wear a sign either. If I decided that I needed to do that, they probably wouldn't disfellowship me--I would still be welcome in their homes and to worship with them--but I am pretty sure they would ask me not to claim their endorsement. I know that's not ideal, but it's still better than what would happen in most "churches".
I don't think meeting with a small fellowship of like-minded believers who don't want to attract persecution for the sake of polygyny is hiding anybody's light. Christ and the gospel is our light, not polygyny, and meeting to fellowship and worship in an unobtrusive manner where you can speak freely and relax is not hiding that light if you are living and preaching the Gospel publicly. I don't mean that there isn't light and hope and freedom to be found in the truths of patriarchy and the right (and sometimes the responsibility!) of a man to have several wives. It just isn't the central message of the Gospel or the central purpose of the Church.
But I'm not. I'm in Texas with a small congregation that teaches salvation by faith publicly and the acceptability of polygyny privately. I understand their concerns, and I share them to a certain extent. I have a history of making stands for unpopular causes, and I am acutely aware of the alienation that can come from it. For the safety of the people with whom I worship, I don't advertise our beliefs regarding polygyny. I won't lie to someone who asks, but I'm not going to wear a sign either. If I decided that I needed to do that, they probably wouldn't disfellowship me--I would still be welcome in their homes and to worship with them--but I am pretty sure they would ask me not to claim their endorsement. I know that's not ideal, but it's still better than what would happen in most "churches".
I don't think meeting with a small fellowship of like-minded believers who don't want to attract persecution for the sake of polygyny is hiding anybody's light. Christ and the gospel is our light, not polygyny, and meeting to fellowship and worship in an unobtrusive manner where you can speak freely and relax is not hiding that light if you are living and preaching the Gospel publicly. I don't mean that there isn't light and hope and freedom to be found in the truths of patriarchy and the right (and sometimes the responsibility!) of a man to have several wives. It just isn't the central message of the Gospel or the central purpose of the Church.
PolyPride
Member
Sharing God's word can sometimes come at a cost. Jesus did not promise us that we'd live comfortably in this world, so we should not neglect to follow God's commands out of fear of persecution from the world. Most of the apostles, Jesus, and many early Christians were killed for sharing God's word and they weren't set on holding back for the sake of relaxation or avoiding persecution.
I'd also want to know, Mark, do you attend a church where the pastor agrees with "all" of your views on Scripture?
For everyone else:
If your pastor disagrees with just one of your views, do you just get up and leave that Church without giving it some chance?
Shouldn't there be a difference between those who are in error of Scripture due to an "honest" misunderstanding while we can tell that that person still has good/honest intentions (as I'm sure some of our own family members who disagree with us on plural marriage are) and those who "blatantly" distort Scripture, especially in their "works" when it comes to following it?
I don't have a perfect answer myself, but I think there should be a difference between the two and there should also be a difference in the way we treat the two, one perhaps we can give a chance to but still try to hold conversation on the matter in question every now and then, and the other perhaps would warrant excommunication until there's repentance.
I'd also want to know, Mark, do you attend a church where the pastor agrees with "all" of your views on Scripture?
For everyone else:
If your pastor disagrees with just one of your views, do you just get up and leave that Church without giving it some chance?
Shouldn't there be a difference between those who are in error of Scripture due to an "honest" misunderstanding while we can tell that that person still has good/honest intentions (as I'm sure some of our own family members who disagree with us on plural marriage are) and those who "blatantly" distort Scripture, especially in their "works" when it comes to following it?
I don't have a perfect answer myself, but I think there should be a difference between the two and there should also be a difference in the way we treat the two, one perhaps we can give a chance to but still try to hold conversation on the matter in question every now and then, and the other perhaps would warrant excommunication until there's repentance.
Apostle Paul lived in a day that was much more oppressive than the US, yet, he said that he Act 20:27:
(ACV) For I did not withdraw from declaring to you the whole plan of God.
(ABU_NT) for I shunned not to declare to you the whole counsel of God.
(AUV-NT) For I held nothing back in declaring to you the entire message of God.
(ALT) "For I did not keep back [anything, but I] declared to youp all the counsel [or, the entire plan] of God.
(ASV) For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God.
(BBE) For I have not kept back from you anything of the purpose of God.
(CEV) I have told you everything God wants you to know.
(Complete Apostles' Bible) For I did not draw back from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.
(CLV) for under no circumstances do I shrink from informing you of the entire counsel of God.
(Darby) for I have not shrunk from announcing to you all the counsel of God.
(Diaglott-NT) not for I kept back of the not to declare to you all the will of the God.
(DRB) For I have not spread to declare unto you all, the counsel of God.
(EB) for I have not shrunk from announcing all the counsel of God unto you.
(EMTV) For I did not draw back from declaring to you all the counsel of God.
(ESV) for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.
(EVID) For I have not shunned to declare to you all the counsel of God.
(Geneva) For I haue kept nothing backe, but haue shewed you all the counsell of God.
(GNB) For I have not held back from announcing to you the whole purpose of God.
(GSNT) for I have not shrunk from letting you know God's purpose without reserve.
(GW) I didn't avoid telling you the whole plan of God.
(IAV) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of Elohim.
(ISV) for I never shrank from telling you the whole plan of God.
(JM-NT) "for you see, I did not draw back from recounting to you folks all the purpose, will and counsel of God (or: from the [situation] to at some point announce again all God's design and determination for you people).
(KJ2000) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
(KJV) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
(KJV-1611) For I haue not shunned to declare vnto you all the counsell of God.
(KJVA) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
(Lamsa NT) For I have never shunned to declare to you, all the will of God.
(LITV) For I did not keep back from declaring to you all the counsel of God.
(MKJV) For I did not keep back from declaring to you all the counsel of God.
(MSTC) For I have kept nothing back: but have showed you all the counsel of God.
(Murdock) For I have not shunned to acquaint you with all the will of God.
(Rotherham) for I have not shrunk from announcing all the counsel of God unto you.
(RV) For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God.
(RYLT-NT) for I did not keep back from declaring to you all the counsel of God.
(TCNT) For I have not shrunk from announcing the whole purpose of God regarding you.
(The Scriptures 1998+) “For I kept not back from declaring to you all the counsel of Elohim.
(UKJV) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
(Webster) For I have not shunned to declare to you all the counsel of God.
(WNT) For I have not shrunk from declaring to you God's whole truth.
(YLT) for I did not keep back from declaring to you all the counsel of God.
(ACV) For I did not withdraw from declaring to you the whole plan of God.
(ABU_NT) for I shunned not to declare to you the whole counsel of God.
(AUV-NT) For I held nothing back in declaring to you the entire message of God.
(ALT) "For I did not keep back [anything, but I] declared to youp all the counsel [or, the entire plan] of God.
(ASV) For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God.
(BBE) For I have not kept back from you anything of the purpose of God.
(CEV) I have told you everything God wants you to know.
(Complete Apostles' Bible) For I did not draw back from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.
(CLV) for under no circumstances do I shrink from informing you of the entire counsel of God.
(Darby) for I have not shrunk from announcing to you all the counsel of God.
(Diaglott-NT) not for I kept back of the not to declare to you all the will of the God.
(DRB) For I have not spread to declare unto you all, the counsel of God.
(EB) for I have not shrunk from announcing all the counsel of God unto you.
(EMTV) For I did not draw back from declaring to you all the counsel of God.
(ESV) for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.
(EVID) For I have not shunned to declare to you all the counsel of God.
(Geneva) For I haue kept nothing backe, but haue shewed you all the counsell of God.
(GNB) For I have not held back from announcing to you the whole purpose of God.
(GSNT) for I have not shrunk from letting you know God's purpose without reserve.
(GW) I didn't avoid telling you the whole plan of God.
(IAV) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of Elohim.
(ISV) for I never shrank from telling you the whole plan of God.
(JM-NT) "for you see, I did not draw back from recounting to you folks all the purpose, will and counsel of God (or: from the [situation] to at some point announce again all God's design and determination for you people).
(KJ2000) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
(KJV) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
(KJV-1611) For I haue not shunned to declare vnto you all the counsell of God.
(KJVA) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
(Lamsa NT) For I have never shunned to declare to you, all the will of God.
(LITV) For I did not keep back from declaring to you all the counsel of God.
(MKJV) For I did not keep back from declaring to you all the counsel of God.
(MSTC) For I have kept nothing back: but have showed you all the counsel of God.
(Murdock) For I have not shunned to acquaint you with all the will of God.
(Rotherham) for I have not shrunk from announcing all the counsel of God unto you.
(RV) For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God.
(RYLT-NT) for I did not keep back from declaring to you all the counsel of God.
(TCNT) For I have not shrunk from announcing the whole purpose of God regarding you.
(The Scriptures 1998+) “For I kept not back from declaring to you all the counsel of Elohim.
(UKJV) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
(Webster) For I have not shunned to declare to you all the counsel of God.
(WNT) For I have not shrunk from declaring to you God's whole truth.
(YLT) for I did not keep back from declaring to you all the counsel of God.
jay c
New Member
Paul was writing to believers who were his own pupils. Within your own congregation you should absolutely have the freedom to speak the whole truth. Of course, you should have the freedom to speak the whole truth anywhere, and you do as long as you are aware of the potential consequences and you are willing to accept them. All believers are commanded to proclaim the gospel publicly and to accept the consequences for doing so. All believers are not commanded to teach the acceptability of polygyny.
Hugh, your congregation has treated you poorly, and I agree with and respect your desire to protest and try to set things right. However, when the dust has cleared, if they still won't accept you, don't eschew the fellowship of believers who will accept you and the truths you have been called to proclaim but who don't want to paint a target on themselves for the sake of something that might be a relatively minor point of doctrine to them. You will never find a perfect congregation nor one that agrees with you on everything. We are commanded to gather together and we would need to even if there was no command. My suggestion is to find the best congregation who will tolerate you and whom you can tolerate in turn, then learn to love each other and make it work. If God has called you to publicly proclaim the truth of polygyny, then don't compromise on that. But to do so, you might have to lower your bar in other areas in order to maintain ongoing fellowship with the body of Christ.
Hugh, your congregation has treated you poorly, and I agree with and respect your desire to protest and try to set things right. However, when the dust has cleared, if they still won't accept you, don't eschew the fellowship of believers who will accept you and the truths you have been called to proclaim but who don't want to paint a target on themselves for the sake of something that might be a relatively minor point of doctrine to them. You will never find a perfect congregation nor one that agrees with you on everything. We are commanded to gather together and we would need to even if there was no command. My suggestion is to find the best congregation who will tolerate you and whom you can tolerate in turn, then learn to love each other and make it work. If God has called you to publicly proclaim the truth of polygyny, then don't compromise on that. But to do so, you might have to lower your bar in other areas in order to maintain ongoing fellowship with the body of Christ.
We are told repeatedly in Scripture that we are to "veer not," or to depart from His path, "to the right or to the left". Yeshua warns that this path is not only "narrow", but "few there be that find it."
Pastor Randy did a nice job of noting as well why the "whole counsel of God" is important. I frequently quote Deut. 4:2 and 12:32, and even the last lines of Revelation as well -- ALL of which warn sternly that man is not to "add to" or "subtract from" what is Written. Yeshua, of course, repeatedly called those men "hypocrites!" who did exactly that (and this was one of the NICER things He said to them; check Matthew 23 for a sample).
People err, husbands err, and pastors err. No one here, myself especially, claims infallibility. And I have learned much from teachers, and from pastors, with whom I had MANY disagreements about many things.
But we are told that "iron sharpens iron" as well, for a reason. Even though we disagree on many major things, Hugh, I have found much of value in your arguments, and those disagreements - even if neither of us have appreciably, or yet, modified on positions on some of those things. Obviously those differences of opinion extend to other, but no doubt very related, understandings.
But there is a difference between being "stiff-necked", and "unteachable". And it is arguably one thing even to "add to" the Word of God -- as forbidden as that obviously is -- and another entirely to deny it outright, or to call good "evil".
Scripture teaches that there is a limit. God sent His people into exile TWICE for exactly such a thing, and nothing in prophecy indicates that He has changed His mind about such hubris. We are told to have "no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness", and, as I noted initially, we have also been told that there comes a point to wipe the dust off of our feet as a witness against them.
Your mileage may vary. Many here, obviously, have learned to "agree to disagree" about many things, and yet remain in fellowship because we respect His Word, and try to remain teachable. I think Scripture is clear, however, that there IS a point where we are to "come out of her," and avoid being partakers "of her plagues".
So long as people are at least WILLING -- like the Bereans -- to "study for themselves" and remain "teachable" from the Word of God, I have no problem remaining in fellowship.
But when THEY not only reject His Word, but call it sin, and choose to break fellowship THEMSELVES, then I contend that the fruit is clear, and so are our directives from Him.
Blessings,
Mark
Pastor Randy did a nice job of noting as well why the "whole counsel of God" is important. I frequently quote Deut. 4:2 and 12:32, and even the last lines of Revelation as well -- ALL of which warn sternly that man is not to "add to" or "subtract from" what is Written. Yeshua, of course, repeatedly called those men "hypocrites!" who did exactly that (and this was one of the NICER things He said to them; check Matthew 23 for a sample).
People err, husbands err, and pastors err. No one here, myself especially, claims infallibility. And I have learned much from teachers, and from pastors, with whom I had MANY disagreements about many things.
But we are told that "iron sharpens iron" as well, for a reason. Even though we disagree on many major things, Hugh, I have found much of value in your arguments, and those disagreements - even if neither of us have appreciably, or yet, modified on positions on some of those things. Obviously those differences of opinion extend to other, but no doubt very related, understandings.
But there is a difference between being "stiff-necked", and "unteachable". And it is arguably one thing even to "add to" the Word of God -- as forbidden as that obviously is -- and another entirely to deny it outright, or to call good "evil".
Scripture teaches that there is a limit. God sent His people into exile TWICE for exactly such a thing, and nothing in prophecy indicates that He has changed His mind about such hubris. We are told to have "no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness", and, as I noted initially, we have also been told that there comes a point to wipe the dust off of our feet as a witness against them.
Your mileage may vary. Many here, obviously, have learned to "agree to disagree" about many things, and yet remain in fellowship because we respect His Word, and try to remain teachable. I think Scripture is clear, however, that there IS a point where we are to "come out of her," and avoid being partakers "of her plagues".
So long as people are at least WILLING -- like the Bereans -- to "study for themselves" and remain "teachable" from the Word of God, I have no problem remaining in fellowship.
But when THEY not only reject His Word, but call it sin, and choose to break fellowship THEMSELVES, then I contend that the fruit is clear, and so are our directives from Him.
Blessings,
Mark
And an open "PS" here, since I see that Jay has posted a good observation while I composed the above.
I have written of my own experience openly here, with respect to a fellowship which actually understood and PREACHED the "whole Word" -- including the fact that a man may have more than one wife. My good friend Jay also attended that fellowship, and, like MANY there (including ALL the leadership, but not all of the membership), knew of my two marriages. Most, and perhaps even all, of those who knew my house well were privately supportive.
But it is one thing to believe something, evidently, and another to practice it openly. That difference was an EXTREME issue in my own house, and eventually resulted in our rejection as a family by that fellowship. I have forgiven all of the individuals involved in that situation (although my wife B -- by her fruit -- has never done so) and consider myself and my wife L to be able to fellowship with all of them individually. (B, as most here know, has left -- and I continue to covet prayers for her repentance and return.)
But I will not, and believe that I SHOULD not, submit to the leadership of a congregation which will not openly pray for or acknowledge my family.
Blessings,
Mark
I have written of my own experience openly here, with respect to a fellowship which actually understood and PREACHED the "whole Word" -- including the fact that a man may have more than one wife. My good friend Jay also attended that fellowship, and, like MANY there (including ALL the leadership, but not all of the membership), knew of my two marriages. Most, and perhaps even all, of those who knew my house well were privately supportive.
But it is one thing to believe something, evidently, and another to practice it openly. That difference was an EXTREME issue in my own house, and eventually resulted in our rejection as a family by that fellowship. I have forgiven all of the individuals involved in that situation (although my wife B -- by her fruit -- has never done so) and consider myself and my wife L to be able to fellowship with all of them individually. (B, as most here know, has left -- and I continue to covet prayers for her repentance and return.)
But I will not, and believe that I SHOULD not, submit to the leadership of a congregation which will not openly pray for or acknowledge my family.
Blessings,
Mark
Paul was making disciples, teaching them to observe all things... this is Gospel mandate for all believers. If our own congregations are afraid to teach the whole counsel of God, then the natural result is that the whole congregation does not embrace the whole counsel of God. Does this mean we broadcast or emphasize doctrines that Scripture does not emphasize? No! Does this mean we "keep it a secret" lest people find out what we really believe? God forbid! Teaching the truth, the whole truh, and nothing but the truth. This is our mandate to the best of our understanding. Moreover, marriage is something that everyone will encounter in thought or practice, so a balanced leadership team will not avoid the truth of Biblical marriage if they truly believe it!
I think you have brought up a good point, Mark. A church that truly believes in plural marriage cannot hide this fact. It isn't healthy for the wives of those who are practicing plural marriage. They have to hide the fact in our society already, causing them much stress in certain situations. The church should be a safe haven for those who love christ - especially to those who are willing to press in further than the others.
Hi Jay, I was meditating on this statement "All believers are not commanded to teach the acceptability of polygyny". I suppose it depends on what is meant by that... All believers have a mandate to disciples others, which certainly involves teaching them all things which Christ commanded. All things which Christ commanded certainly does not neglect the teaching on Biblical Marriage. Although this shouldn't be the major thing that is taught, how can one neglect teaching and discipling people about marriage, which undoubtedly includes many aspects. I would no more reject all the passages about raising children as I would reject all the passages about Biblical marriage. So, my point is simply this: if one uses the argument that all believers are not commanded to teach the acceptability of polygyny, cannot we also argue that (at least from the angle that is being presented) we are not commanded to teach the acceptance of raising our children in accordance to Biblical standards, or "________________________" chose your theme? I think that Bible based believers do not really have a choice regarding these matters.
jay c
New Member
You are correct, Pastor. The words I chose were misleading. I should have kept to the theme of "preaching." Although not all believers are called to be teachers, I think God expects all of us to teach on occasion, and as Mark pointed out, we are forbidden from subtracting or adding to God's word. My intent was to say that not all believers are called to be teachers of polygyny, as opposed to teaching correct doctrine about polygyny.
Consider Paul's ministry to the gentiles. All believers should teach that there is no difference between Jew and gentile so far as salvation is concerned. Not all Jewish believers of his day were called to be apostles to the gentiles. Some might have been called to be apostles only to the Jews in a particular city in Judea. Certainly they should teach that gentiles are acceptable to God, but that probably wouldn't be the focus of their ministry and they might even rightly de-emphasize it and ask people not to make a big deal of it to avoid distracting people from their central message. Should Paul not fellowship with such a person? If they were teaching that gentiles were unclean as Peter was doing by his actions, then that's a problem (although not necessarily one to cause disfellowship).
Consider Paul's ministry to the gentiles. All believers should teach that there is no difference between Jew and gentile so far as salvation is concerned. Not all Jewish believers of his day were called to be apostles to the gentiles. Some might have been called to be apostles only to the Jews in a particular city in Judea. Certainly they should teach that gentiles are acceptable to God, but that probably wouldn't be the focus of their ministry and they might even rightly de-emphasize it and ask people not to make a big deal of it to avoid distracting people from their central message. Should Paul not fellowship with such a person? If they were teaching that gentiles were unclean as Peter was doing by his actions, then that's a problem (although not necessarily one to cause disfellowship).
I'm not getting much out of our exchange Mark, as I really can't pin down your "point of origin" as it were, with regard to proper fellowship.Mark C said:
My constant point is that the early church attempted to commune with the existing religious structure, right up to the point where they were thrown out. Paul goes back to Jerusalem to preach the Gospel and is imprisoned for life for his effort, and as I point out, the early church continued to meet right under the noses of the very people who crucified Christ.
I'm not expecting to get anything in particular, my three best case scenarios are as follows:
I get formally and absolutely thrown out. I don't want that, but it serves the purpose of having witnessed to "organized religion" as it were. I think that sorta gives me a "Get out of Church Free" card that allows me to go ahead with whatever Godly plans I might have. I have shown submission to those who sit in the seat of Moses, I'm on my own.
I am admitted to membership with the understanding that I am not to discuss matters where I disagree with the leadership of the OPC in open church, unless of course I renounce them, or the OPC changes it's mind. I realize both are highly unlikely, and the second almost impossible to hope for.
I am forbidden to speak at all about the topic, in or out of the church, but will be afforded a formal audience with some grand poo-bah of the denomination, for ongoing on the record discussions and debate of the topic.
I'm betting on getting tossed out on my noggin.
I'm obviously having the same difficulty, Hugh, since I thought from your posts above, the letter you posted, and even the title of this thread, that you already HAD been.
In my own case, as I thought was hopefully clear from the above comment, I was told that I was welcome to "fellowship", as were each of my wives separately, but that we were "not welcome" as a family under my headship. That was sufficient to demonstrate to me that I was NOT to "submit" to their authority...to the extent that it denied Him, and likewise my authority as head of house in submission to YHVH, in accord with His Word.
I don't have the problem of bringing "wives" to church, I only have one. I am under the constant suspicion it seems that I DO have more than one wife, and I'm just lurking around the church waiting to pop that wife on them the first chance I get.
Thus in all ways except belief in a particular doctrine, I am acceptable to the church.
What's fascinating though, is they can overlook doctrinal differences on infant/believer baptism, on tithing, on Sunday Sabbath observance and so on, with the provision that I not PROMOTE that inside the church, in all other ways, I am probably a better Presbyterian than most of them, including some of the elders. One of those features is my staunch Calvinistic brand of theology.
It is clear though, that simply believing, but not actually practicing plural marriage, is a deal breaker. Finding that in the "orientation" materials, as it were, is impossible, because it's not there. I have not in fact had it represented to me by even the high muckedy mucks that there is such an up front requirement. The denomination's position is that of "monogamy only/preference" but it is not said that I had to AGREE with that to be a member, only to not teach/practice.
I represent a threat though, because I simply won't act like I don't believe in polygyny as valid, even behind the scenes, submissively. I have to be silenced.
In saying "I've been banned from my church," I'm not saying I accept that. I am saying this is the substance of the communications they have sent me. I reject the procedure as invalid, which is why I'm planning to show up this coming Sunday. That should prove interesting.
Thus in all ways except belief in a particular doctrine, I am acceptable to the church.
What's fascinating though, is they can overlook doctrinal differences on infant/believer baptism, on tithing, on Sunday Sabbath observance and so on, with the provision that I not PROMOTE that inside the church, in all other ways, I am probably a better Presbyterian than most of them, including some of the elders. One of those features is my staunch Calvinistic brand of theology.
It is clear though, that simply believing, but not actually practicing plural marriage, is a deal breaker. Finding that in the "orientation" materials, as it were, is impossible, because it's not there. I have not in fact had it represented to me by even the high muckedy mucks that there is such an up front requirement. The denomination's position is that of "monogamy only/preference" but it is not said that I had to AGREE with that to be a member, only to not teach/practice.
I represent a threat though, because I simply won't act like I don't believe in polygyny as valid, even behind the scenes, submissively. I have to be silenced.
In saying "I've been banned from my church," I'm not saying I accept that. I am saying this is the substance of the communications they have sent me. I reject the procedure as invalid, which is why I'm planning to show up this coming Sunday. That should prove interesting.
- Status