My Response from LCMS regarding Polygamy

[lutherangirl]

I sent a request in Dec 2007 regarding our Synod's position on polygamy, along with asking if I would get excommunicated for the LCMS church for practicing polygamy. This is the response I got back from Dr. Jearld Joersz, Associate Executive Director, Commission on Theology and Church Relations. Notice the response doesn't say anything about Marin Luther's position on the subject or my excommunication. I also find it quite interesting that an article was printed in The Lutheran Witness regarding this subject in 2008. I'm not Theological trained, so I'd love to hear some rebuttals Synod's position in a "layman's" terms. I might have to use your defenses one day. :lol:

"We are aware of no "cannon" law in the history of the Christian church that at some point "prohibited a second wife." In the Christian understanding, Jesus taught that monogamy was the norm from the very beginning, a truth consistently and unanimously held by the New Testament writers. By way of example, the following paragraphs summarize the Lutheran understanding of the scriptural teaching:

"Polygamy is prohibited by all Scripture and all Christian churches. Monogamous marriage is the only form of marriage recognized by Jesus as instituted by God for all time (Matt 19:4-6). While Scripture records instances of polygamous marriage in the Old Testament, it does not thereby sanction polygamy. It is forbidden in the Moral Law (Lev 18:18). The Civil Law of Moses did indeed permit it (Deut 21:15-17), as it permitted also divorces not sanctioned by the Moral Law, and for the same reason, 'because of the hardness of their hearts' (Matt 19:8). this toleration and regulation of polygamy and of divorce does not carry with it the sanction of Moral Law. A thing may be legally right, but not morally." (E. Koehler, A Summary of Christian doctrine, 286).

"According to the divine institution, lawful marriage consists of one man and one woman (Gen 2:18,24). Christ supported monogram as the only proper form of marriage (Matt 19:4-6). While the bible does not directly condemn the plural marriages that occurred in the OT, it candidly reports the evil effects of polygamy as in the families of Jacob (Gen 35:22, 37:18-28), David (2 Sam 13:15), and especially Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-2)." (J. T. Mueller, The Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, "Polygamy")

The above-described position is similar to that held by the Roman Catholic Church (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1610, 1645, 2387).

 

[Tndreamergal]

I just read Matthew 19, all of it, not just 4-6. I read it in KJV and NIV and found many concepts worth further study. While those three verses are the basis for a union that should not be broken, I believe they can be read as each union is that way, but I don't read that only one is permitted. Two verses later the term "wives" is used as a plural. (in both versions)

There is much here that I still need to study and understand. But if my God wants His children to love and care for each other inside of a strong permanent family relationship, why would the option of PM be ruled out by Him?

This is also the chapter that discusses the "eye of the needle" concerning wealth. How do wealthy church leaders read that into moral law? But I digress from the topic. I just find so much in formal religion that is in the “do as I say” instead of “have you listened to God on this” catagory. Counsel from those more learned and experienced can be a blessing, but each individual has a responsibility to run that counsel past a Higher Authority in what I call a gut check.

 

[Paul not the apostle]

Always beware of responses from high up church officials that quote others and that don't speak for themselves based on their own knowledge of scripture. It is the first sign that they are only repeating beliefs, not understanding or teaching truth.

Also, in any situation that we discuss with someone, if that other person does not want to have an open mind or is not willing nor wanting to even talk about something, no matter what we say or how much truth we present, that person is simply not going to listen. They might act like they are listening, but they are only hearing. As an example, if you drag someone to the dinner table to give a critique of a meal, no matter how good it is there is always something to find fault with like too hot, too cold, too spicy, not enough spice. Basically, you can lead a horse to water....

So, try this technique. Instead of spending a lot of time trying to convince someone that they are wrong, just ask them questions. Ask them to explain their position to you. When they respond like they did above, ask them more questions about what they sent to you. As they start to explain it, they will eventually contradict themselves and eventually start ignoring you. But in reality, this monogamy only deception is a part of about 2000 years of false doctrine being reinforced generation by generation. I say that to keep the real enemy in the forefront. We don't battle flesh and blood. I would not spend any time trying to respond or convince, it simply won't work. Save your pearls for the ears that will listen.

And regarding poly positive arguments, I recommend the Thelyphthora series, especially the first one. I have a large collection of poly doctrine books, and from my perspective Madan does the best job of countering them all, verse by verse. It also will show you that what we are doing today is the same as every other generation, we face the exact same circumstances. He lived and wrote in the 1700's.

We are, in my opinion, not a movement but a remnant. A remnant that has been dealing with the same issue and same resistance to that truth for 2000 years.

 

[PolyPride]

I sent a request in Dec 2007 regarding our Synod's position on polygamy, along with asking if I would get excommunicated for the LCMS church for practicing polygamy. This is the response I got back from Dr. Jearld Joersz, Associate Executive Director, Commission on Theology and Church Relations. Notice the response doesn't say anything about Marin Luther's position on the subject or my excommunication. I also find it quite interesting that an article was printed in The Lutheran Witness regarding this subject in 2008. I'm not Theological trained, so I'd love to hear some rebuttals Synod's position in a "layman's" terms. I might have to use your defenses one day. :lol:

"We are aware of no "cannon" law in the history of the Christian church that at some point "prohibited a second wife." In the Christian understanding, Jesus taught that monogamy was the norm from the very beginning, a truth consistently and unanimously held by the New Testament writers.

I'll take a shot at the part I changed to bold font.

The main problem with the selected statement is that some people don't consider that there can be a difference between monogamy and a two person marriage. The difference is that monogamy restricts a person to having only one mate, and that's by definition. Keep in mind that the word monogamy is not used in the Bible, at all. So when you just say two person marriage w/out specifying monogamy then that leaves the door open to meaning two people PER marriage which goes with Plural marriage (or more than one marriage at one time). So a polygamist can maintain the two person marriage model by simply having each wife in two SEPARATE marriages. This is not unreasonable or in conflict with the Bible, because at best, Genesis 2:24 mentions the number of PEOPLE allowed in a marriage but it does not mention the number of MARRIAGES a person can have at one time.

It's also interesting that when the authors of the Bible did want to stress a person being able to have just ONE wife, that they actually specified a number with the word wife, like with Bishops, Deacons, etc (e.g. 1 Timothy 3). Why would Paul need to stress a number there if monogamy was a universally accepted norm? It makes more sense that he was giving different rules for those in higher positions because those in higher positions would have SOME different (or more stringent) rules than the populace. That is parallel with Leviticus 21:10-16 where the the rules of marriage for a high priest were more strict than the rules for the general population. For instance, a high priest could only marry virgins compared to others who could marry those who were justifiably divorced or were a widow.

 

[lutherangirl]

This is also the chapter that discusses the "eye of the needle" concerning wealth. How do wealthy church leaders read that into moral law? But I digress from the topic. I just find so much in formal religion that is in the “do as I say” instead of “have you listened to God on this” catagory. Counsel from those more learned and experienced can be a blessing, but each individual has a responsibility to run that counsel past a Higher Authority in what I call a gut check.

I like this very much. I think some church leaders loose their way when it comes to listening to God.

Paul, I will have to look into the Thelyphthora. Thank you for the reference.

Polypride, I know what you mean about 1 Tim 3. Most churches went to act like after Jesus started his ministry and after His death, polygamy seized to exist. We hear this all the time from our Christian friends, "Well, it was OK during the OT times, but it's not for now."

Funny that after posting this yesterday, Gary and I went to Wednesday night service, and the sermon was on Truth vs. Tradition. Mark 7:1-23. The introduction statement: Christianity can be polluted by tradition if tradition becomes equal or greater than God's law. The pastor did an awesome job retelling about the Pharisees saying that Jesus' disciples had broke some law by not washing their hands before eating--a law/rule that wasn't commanded anywhere in Scripture. As I'm listening to this very good sermon, I kept thinking about what I posted and thought to myself, "Isn't the stance on PM from the church regarding if it's moral or lawful a tradition?" Hmmm....

 

[PolyPride]

This is also the chapter that discusses the "eye of the needle" concerning wealth. How do wealthy church leaders read that into moral law? But I digress from the topic. I just find so much in formal religion that is in the “do as I say” instead of “have you listened to God on this” catagory. Counsel from those more learned and experienced can be a blessing, but each individual has a responsibility to run that counsel past a Higher Authority in what I call a gut check.

...

Polypride, I know what you mean about 1 Tim 3. Most churches went to act like after Jesus started his ministry and after His death, polygamy seized to exist. We hear this all the time from our Christian friends, "Well, it was OK during the OT times, but it's not for now."

...

I know what you mean. The polygamy ban actually started with the Greek Empire and then was adopted by the Roman Empire. Both empires preceeded Jesus so the Greeks and Romans (non-Jews) would've already been practicing monogamy only to begin with, at least officially. Although I question if it was really monogamy considering some men having concubines, slave women, and mistresses on the side. Contrary to the greater popluation practice of the Gentile world following the monogamy rules, the Jews were still practicing polygyny because the issue had to be addressed by the Roman Emperor Justinian in 535 CE (that's nearly 500 years AFTER Christ).

I've provided sources for these points on another thread on this forum. Here's the link: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=3095
---scroll down to the 7th comment on the page which is mine. If you want to just refer to Justinian's act on addressing polygamy in the 6 century CE then in that same post, refer to the 2nd quoted source.

 

[Paul not the apostle]

You can check out the links section of this site, Thelyphthora is linked to there, both volume one and two. It is written in the older english style where the "s" looks like a big "f", but you get used to it quickly and I can't recommend it highly enough. There is a very good section on polygamy, and sometimes the author goes into great detail about a certain scripture, the "husband of one wife" section is worth reading, really cool stuff about the city of Corinth, and things that really make you understand why things were written as they were.

 

[PolyPride]

....
"
1. Polygamy is prohibited by all Scripture and all Christian churches.

2. Monogamous marriage is the only form of marriage recognized by Jesus as instituted by God for all time (Matt 19:4-6).

3. While Scripture records instances of polygamous marriage in the Old Testament, it does not thereby sanction polygamy. It is forbidden in the Moral Law (Lev 18:18).

4. The Civil Law of Moses did indeed permit it (Deut 21:15-17), as it permitted also divorces not sanctioned by the Moral Law, and for the same reason, 'because of the hardness of their hearts' (Matt 19:8). this toleration and regulation of polygamy and of divorce does not carry with it the sanction of Moral Law. A thing may be legally right, but not morally." (E. Koehler, A Summary of Christian doctrine, 286).

I broke apart the above statement by E. Koehler into 4 parts, and I'll give my opinion on each of them accordingly.

1. As Paul not the Apostle noticed here, this statement seems very scripted. It's easy to see in the statement's 1st sentence the inaccuracy. The Law never mentions any prohibition on polygamy, and to the contrary mentions rules on practicing it.

2. I've heard two explanations in reference to Jesus' statement in Matthew 19:4-6 which reiterates part of Genesis 2:24. Some say that polygamy is simply an 'exception' to those passages. I'm not sure if those who hold that viewpoint also accept polygamy being practiced as multiple marriages at the same time. So I suppose using their 'exception' viewpoint without PLURAL marriage, Jesus was only using monogamous marriage as an example to answer a question about divorce. He was not giving a response about what form of marriage is allowed.

I've only honestly heard a few using that exception viewpoint and again I'm not sure if they also accept the plural marriage viewpoint. I accept the plural marriage viewpoint so to me Matthew 19:4-6 is just Jesus quoting the 2 person per marriage model. Pointing out that Jesus was answering a question about 'divorce' is helpful but it makes no difference because how Jesus answered did not outrule polygamy as PLURAL marriage. In my previous post on this page (the 4th post), I explained how a 2 person marriage does not necessarily mean monogamy.

3. It's interesting that the above statement only says the Bible 'mentions' polygamy, but it doesn't go further to mention how polygamy is mentioned. There are laws given to actually practice polygamy like the levirate law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) and other rules for how God wants polygamy practiced (Deuteronomy 21:15-16 and Exodus 21:7-11). We not only have rules, we also see God's acts when it comes to dealing with polygamy. God helped a MARRIED man to love a SECOND wife (Genesis 29:30-33). God also refers to Himself as a polygamist when He says he had 2 wives (Jerusalem and Samaria). You can find that in Ezekiel 23:1, 4, 36, 37 and Jeremiah 3:8. So we have Laws for practicing and NOT punishing polygamy or calling it wrong which goes along with God's actions with polygamists. I'd say that's more to do with just mentioning the polygamy.

The above statement mentions Leviticus 18:18 as being against polygamy? If anything I see that as a rule for polygamy. Otherwise what's the point in mentioning to not marry 2 sisters to create rivalry when the law already mentions to not commit adultery? Wouldn't every way to commit adultery be adultery whether it inovlves 2 sisters or just any other woman? THat's why I believe this passage actually supports polygamy by giving a rule for it. The rule is to not marry two SISTERS (so it doesn't cover all women) with the intentions of making a 'rivalry'. Even if pressed more, we can just say it is just a prohibition of sororal polygamy but I believe the former more due to Jacob's sororal poly marriage in Genesis.


4. I've always questioned the classification of the Law into 'moral', 'ceremonial', and 'civil' laws. What is the criteria for the classifcation of each category? But the author's statement goes a bit further by creating a subcategory for civil laws by implying that there's MOSES' civil laws and GOD's civil laws. That's another debate by itself but I will add that the author ASSUMES that Detueronomy 21:15-16 is something that's MOSES-made instead of God-made. There's no evidence to support that, and all that the Bible mentions that is MOSES-made from the Law are the laws on divorce and NOTHING more.

I also wonder if the author finds the laws on 'adultery' (which I hope the author would classify as a 'moral' law) as being MOSES-made even when the Bible makes no mention of it coming from Moses. Adultery in the Law actually makes sense if polyGYNY is allowed because it is always described and defined as a man sleeping with another man's wife (e.g. Leviticus 20:10). So it has to do with a married WOMAN and not a married man. Looking up the Hebrew word for adultery (na'aph) in my Strong's Concordance mentions "a woman that breaks wedlock" or when a man sleeps with a married woman. And when a man (no marital status specified so it includes all men) sleeps with an UNmarried woman you notice there's no punishment or that being called adultery, although it would be fornication if the man did not intend on marrying the woman (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 22:16).

 

[T-C's Rebeka]

Thank you Lutherangirl for posting this!
As some of you might know, I am also in the LCMS (Lutheran Church-Missiouri Synod) and I appreciate you sharing this response on the BF forum.

 

[lutherangirl]

Polypride, you are right, some of the answers this scholarly man sent, make no sense what-so-ever. The Leviticus 18:18 even goes to say that you can actually marry sisters as long as your not doing it to rival the other.

When I came across responses from huge church establishments like the LCMS, it feels pretty defeating that plural marriage will ever be accepted in my lifetime in the mainstream churches. Trying to remain "truly" Biblical in regards to plural marriage seems almost impossible if we all are honest with ourselves here on this site. I mean Christians aren't even keeping with the tradition of worshiping with one another daily in homes and breaking bread together daily like talked about in The Book of Acts. We don't even come close to keeping the basics of this trend, so of course we aren't going to be blessed in the ways, including plural marriage, of our fore Christian brothers and sisters until we start worshiping and loving the same way they did.

 

[lutherangirl]

Thank you Lutherangirl for posting this!
As some of you might know, I am also in the LCMS (Lutheran Church-Missiouri Synod) and I appreciate you sharing this response on the BF forum.

We are in the same boat up against the same establishment to defend our beliefs. I hope you will share what you've learned and how you defend yourself against our "peeps".

 

[T-C's Rebeka]

Thank you Lutherangirl for posting this!
As some of you might know, I am also in the LCMS (Lutheran Church-Missiouri Synod) and I appreciate you sharing this response on the BF forum.

We are in the same boat up against the same establishment to defend our beliefs. I hope you will share what you've learned and how you defend yourself against our "peeps".

Looking forward to sharing with you what I "discover" as a progress through the politics of church.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

The above-described position is similar to that held by the Roman Catholic Church (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1610, 1645, 2387).

Ask them why they are not Roman Catholic if they regard the Pope's interpretation above Martin Luther's interpretation of scripture?

 

[Moses777]

I do not think PM is going to be accepted in the current mainstream denominations. I think the only way PM will be accepted is if a new denomination is formed that really makes a big impact, and through its example other denominations will change their views on polygamy. But I personally do not think the main denominations will accept polygamy through a handful of people in their church desiring to practice PM or already practicing PM.