Polygamy for economic survival

[Wesley]

Wesley: Why hello there, new resource. I am glad to have met you. I need just that depth of insight quite a bit and can never seem to find it. I'm always amazed at how some people can wring so much meaning out of such small verses. I'm always given to believing it was there to find, but like a said, hebrew is my achilles... Thank you for your response!

As far as some of the conclusions you've drawn; I can't really find any substantial reason to disagree off the top of my head. It's worth meditating on.

Thank you. I'm always happy to help a brother or sister in Christ.

Meditating, thinking, or whichever term you prefer is a good choice of action. Never put any person, not even me, in the place of Christ by taking his/her word over what the Holy Spirit has shown you from the Bible. The Holy Spirit guides all of us if we listen. As noted in 1 Corinthians 12 however sometimes the instructions do differ from one person to another so as to accommodate that person's purpose in the Kingdom of God (eye, ear, etc.).

Elisheba: How strange and wonderful. While I cannot currently stomach poly as strictly economic strategy, I welcome it gladly in preference to serial monogamy. The one woman after another gambit (favored by my family as far back as can be reckoned by any living members) is senselessly destructive money-wise and emotion-wise. To see a fractured family at least appear to be drawing back together warms my blood pumping muscle.

The Apostle Paul referred to this issue.

Philippians 1:15-19 NIV
15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

Elisheba: How strange and wonderful. While I cannot currently stomach poly as strictly economic strategy, I welcome it gladly in preference to serial monogamy. The one woman after another gambit (favored by my family as far back as can be reckoned by any living members) is senselessly destructive money-wise and emotion-wise. To see a fractured family at least appear to be drawing back together warms my blood pumping muscle.

Well I'd hope none of us would ever consider poly (or any kind of marriage) as strictly economic strategy. When I think about a relationship with God, yeah: Heaven is a real perk... The rent has already been paid by the Bridegroom! Even so, if that is the only motivation and there is no love for the Bridegroom, you're missing ALL OF THE RELATIONSHIP which, in my opinion, is the best part! By no means was this thread started as an argument to advocate pm as a strictly economic strategy, and I hope no one ever comes away with such a sad vision/doctrine of pm. (Not that I think most of the people on here would) Even so, I was more thinking along the lines of what Elisheba noted: streamline. 1 rent instead of 2/3/4. 1 Supper (consideration of hours of prep time) prepared instead of 2/3/4. Etc.

 

[Wesley]

Even so, I was more thinking along the lines of what Elisheba noted: streamline. 1 rent instead of 2/3/4. 1 Supper (consideration of hours of prep time) prepared instead of 2/3/4. Etc.

Let's not forget the benefits described in Proverbs 31:10-31 either. Although I agree with you, and Elisheba, that it should not be the sole motivating factor.

Proverbs 31:10-31 NIV
10 A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still night;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her female servants.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Honor her for all that her hands have done,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Your theoretical construct is fine, yes of course it is better for the single mother to be part of the family.

However I am thinking in practical terms. As head of the household, the husband would normally be the provider of economic resources. If the husband is not the provider, I ask the question, why is the woman there? This is a generalisation, but the reality is that if the man has no economic resources, the woman will leave for another man who will provide for her and her children.

Have an economic team effort sure, but I don't think that simply providing a family structure for a single mother is enough. You might be a stop gap, but she will leave when a better option comes up, ie a man who wants just her, and will provide for her.

As a woman, I just thought I'd factor in with other reasons a woman would be there.
Because children need a father, and because there is soooo much more to marriage then financial support. Even if the man had NO economic resources, if he does ANYTHING to take care of the children or home, while the mother works, it is a huge contribution.
Statistics show that a father is more important then a mother, in raising children with a moral foundation.
I'd also like to point out, that just because a man can make money, does not mean he is moral, or has the skills to succeed in relationships.
I see a family structure, not as a stop gap, but as a stopping point. Loved ones are more wealth then the richest man can buy.
I saw a thread on here years ago, where the ladies were asked "If you had to choose, would you rather have a good man, or a rich one." The votes were unanimous for the good man. I think that makes my point.

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

On the Prov. 31 quote above: you make an interesting point. It occurred to me that one of the other considerations that many people don't consider in our societal context may be this: (Travelling back thousands of years to Ancient Israel, for principle sake) If the husband has to go off to make war on the 'who-ever-ites', can the family/farm/economic survival of the family completely fall to pieces while he is away? Especially if he gets killed while defending the land, or it is merely an extended conflict... it may be awhile before his spouse(s) have anyone to take the reins to keep ensuring that (since they presumably had no managerial experience whatsoever in regards to the land and economic resources while he was there) the whole family/food production cycle doesn't go under.

Plus, ensuring that his dependents will survive if he's not able to be there for awhile gives him the flexibility to do what needs to be done in such instances.

 

[ylop]

I saw a thread on here years ago, where the ladies were asked "If you had to choose, would you rather have a good man, or a rich one." The votes were unanimous for the good man. I think that makes my point.

Hi Joleneakamama.

Yes I agree that a man's character should be given more weighting than his wealth when selecting a husband.

Although, to a certain degree, a man's wealth is a reflection of his intelligence, work ethic and adaptability/innovativeness.

But how women vote on a forum can be a lot different to their behaviour in real life.

In my experience and observation, women will choose a rich man over a good one. There is abundant research around this topic, one of the key words is "hypergamy". I find it distasteful, but a reality.

Cheers,

ylop

 

[Wesley]

In my experience and observation, women will choose a rich man over a good one.

Worldly women will choose a wealthy man over a good man. Christian women generally will not. Of course Christ was correct in summarizing the number of real Christians in the world when he said "small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it" (Matthew 7:13-14 NIV) and "“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21 NIV)

Before we accuse Christian women of being so materialistic we need to consider these verses.

1 Timothy 5:8 NIV
8 Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Isaiah 4:1 NIV
4 1 In that day seven women
will take hold of one man
and say, “We will eat our own food
and provide our own clothes;
only let us be called by your name.
Take away our disgrace!”

In the first case, Paul is saying that all Christians (including women since the pronoun that Paul chose is all inclusive) are responsible for providing for their families. Further, the women that Isaiah are describing are planning to support themselves financially (provide their own food and clothing) they just want a husband.

Some have said that it is "normal" for the husband to provide for the family. I refuse to accept that as being the norm. I serve God, not any human, and God's norm is for all members of the family to provide for the family not just the man.

 

[Wesley]

Plus, ensuring that his dependents will survive if he's not able to be there for awhile gives him the flexibility to do what needs to be done in such instances.

Well said.

 

[starlit]

Yes I agree that a man's character should be given more weighting than his wealth when selecting a husband.

Although, to a certain degree, a man's wealth is a reflection of his intelligence, work ethic and adaptability/innovativeness.

But how women vote on a forum can be a lot different to their behaviour in real life.

In my experience and observation, women will choose a rich man over a good one. There is abundant research around this topic, one of the key words is "hypergamy". I find it distasteful, but a reality.

I had to laugh Ylop when i read this, because i have always looked at someones heart, mind, and spiritual side when picking someone to talk to, court, or date. I am very far, far away from those women that pick men for money. Hmmm...gives me an idea. Maybe that is what i have been doing wrong! I will say on a serious note that when i didnt regard a families financial state and well being into my decision it was a disaster. Something can be said for making sure a man can hold down a job and take care of his family.

 

[starlit]

As a woman, I just thought I'd factor in with other reasons a woman would be there.
Because children need a father, and because there is soooo much more to marriage then financial support. Even if the man had NO economic resources, if he does ANYTHING to take care of the children or home, while the mother works, it is a huge contribution.
Statistics show that a father is more important then a mother, in raising children with a moral foundation.
I'd also like to point out, that just because a man can make money, does not mean he is moral, or has the skills to succeed in relationships.
I see a family structure, not as a stop gap, but as a stopping point. Loved ones are more wealth then the richest man can buy.
I saw a thread on here years ago, where the ladies were asked "If you had to choose, would you rather have a good man, or a rich one." The votes were unanimous for the good man. I think that makes my point.

I wish there was a like button for posts. I agree Jo. I'm not looking for Richie Rich, but a family man that is moral and will do the best he can to take care of his family in whatever form he is able to.

 

[FollowingHim2]

In my experience and observation, women will choose a rich man over a good one...I find it distasteful, but a reality.

Proven by the love shown for the character Christian Grey at the moment. Very widespread. Very worrying.

 

[Elisheba]

I would like to just point out that I don't think that money in and of its self is a reason to do anything, however it is a nice perk of poly that more hands make lighter work, and that the added expense is nothing close to supporting another household if you are co housing.....(on a side note I was joking that I should just sell my place as a ready made poly heaven since we have 3 houses on the property. LOL)

One of the main things that would have made poly very attractive in ancient cultures would be that there is more chance of wealth when so many workers are there to help. For instance, with my older kids and my husband and I working we can accomplish the same amount in an afternoon that would take one person a week.

Yet again, I don't think going into poly for just this reason would be enough but it is an amazing piece of the story.

As far as the good vs the wealthy, I think when it comes down to it the wealth that comes spiritually, and emotionally from a strong, good man is priceless and I personally would live a simple, happy, life with that kind of man and never give a second thought to a wealthy man who didn't posses those qualities. There are gold diggers out there, and there are women who want to be a help to the man Yah wants them to be with, with no thought to "gold". I would expect that most of the women on here just simply want to live the plan that Yah has for their life. And I think most of us would agree that is the biggest, most important, piece of the story for any of us.

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

I would hope most godly men could reconcile the best of both worlds, to be sure, but it seems the Bible specifically in Proverbs 19:1, and generally elsewhere, has a higher opinion of those who do what is right in the eyes of the Father than those who have vast quantities of material possessions.

That being said, a wastrel probably isn't honoring the Almighty by diligently following His ways and principles.

 

[Elisheba]

I think I do get what you are saying, which is followers of the principals in Scripture should be able to have a comfortable life... but Job wasn't a "wastrel" was he? That was purely testing. Right?

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

I wouldn't call Job a wastrel, no. Nor would I criticize Jesus, Stephen, Paul, etc. for not having comfortable lives. I believe that living a godly life can certainly be a hard road. This is why I stated that I would hope most godly men could reconcile the best of both worlds. Barring that, however, godly integrity is better than someone who is wealthy and ungodly.
I wouldn't call any of the above mentioned individuals lazy lay-about sloths who never did more than think about how comfortable they could be by just spending all their inheritance on prodigal living, or whatever.
A godly life doesn't necessarily translate into a comfortable one, but I don't believe that godly people would be poor stewards of whatever resources God has given them.

 

[Wesley]

In my experience and observation, women will choose a rich man over a good one...I find it distasteful, but a reality.

Proven by the love shown for the character Christian Grey at the moment. Very widespread. Very worrying.

While I agree that worldly women seek rich men rather than family men, much to their chagrin in the long run, I don't see any correlation between that and the fascination with Christian Grey. The fascination with Christian Grey runs much deeper than mere greed for money.

 

[Wesley]

I would hope most godly men could reconcile the best of both worlds, to be sure, but it seems the Bible specifically in Proverbs 19:1, and generally elsewhere, has a higher opinion of those who do what is right in the eyes of the Father than those who have vast quantities of material possessions.

That being said, a wastrel probably isn't honoring the Almighty by diligently following His ways and principles.

It would seem that the Holy Spirit and the Apostle Paul agree with you.

1 Timothy 5:8 NIV
8 Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

Well that's a comfort, Wesley!

If I've got opinions which they would disagree about, I've probably got some reconsidering to do! And hey, it's happened before. Knowing that I'm the one that has to come into line with the text is actually very comforting. 1 standard, not everyone doing what is right in their own eyes, you know?

It would be silly to reinvent the wheel (already invented by some primitive human), how nuts would it be to reinvent godly living? (already invented by the Most High God!)

 

[FollowingHim]

Jumping back to the OP for a moment:

Now, it seems to me that there was a time in the USA when a single income family could manage well enough, but as time marched on double income homes became the standard. These days, however, it seems like there are an awful lot of folks out there struggling to get by on just two incomes.

Ever wondered why?

Back in the day, the man was expected to be the provider, and women had a limited number of socially acceptable employment opportunities outside the home (nurses, teachers etc). Then feminists decided that women should have the opportunity to do more (fair enough), and society changed to give women more opportunities. No problem with the logic. But that changed the entire economic situation around pay.

The more women who chose to work, the larger the workforce, ie the greater the supply of labour. When you raise supply you lower prices. So the more women working, the lower the average wage could be. Wages reduced in real terms (ie buying power) over the years. The lower wages got, the more families struggled, and the more wives needed to work. The more wives worked, the lower the wages. A century later we've basically doubled the workforce, doubling the supply of labour - and roughly halving effective salaries. So the average family now needs two incomes now to be as well off as a family a century ago would be on one.

The net result is that a century ago many women had no choice but to be a housewife, and now many women have no choice but to have a career. So much for freedom for women...

Back to the economics, there are a few different ways out of this, for instance:
- Husband gets a top job, or better builds a good business, that gives him around twice as much money as the average wage, allowing the wife to stay at home.
- Drop expenses to allow a family to survive really cheaply on the now-pitiful wage of an average-earning husband.
- Polygamy with at least one working wife, giving multiple incomes to support the family.

All are viable options. Others exist too. Each to their own, there are no rules.

Personally I wouldn't take on an additional wife without having the money to support her. I wouldn't want her to have to work in order to survive. But I'm quite happy for a wife to work if she chooses - ideally within my own business if I could arrange that.

 

[ylop]

All are viable options. Others exist too. Each to their own, there are no rules.

I agree with that general sentiment.

Life is deep and varied.

But in general, polygamy is something that occurs for a man in a personal situation of abundance, not scarcity. Certainly in a historical context. It has been for the rich and powerful (relatively in their own societies).

My thought is that if polygamy is needed for survival, it is a weak foundation.

And after observing so many train wrecks on this forum, my conclusion is that polygamy needs to be commenced from a situation of strength in all areas, as it will surely bring any weaknesses to the surface.