Confession Time

I am coming out with something I felt guilty pleasure about for some time now. It is an addiction I tell you, an Addiction I refuse to give up despite the moral vendetta that I battle with on a weekly basis. SO here is my confession: I am addicted to the TLC show Sister Wives. Ahh, its out, I can breathe.

If you have not heard about them, crawl out from under the anti-cable rock in which you have been hiding and let me educate you on a truly (haha, truly)controversial show on public television. Meet the Kody Family, a polygamist Mormon family living out their life in front of the world. Husband Kody -- along with his four wives: Meri (20 years), Janelle(17 years), Christine (16 years) and Robyn(newly married)and their combined 16 children. This show is crazy addicting as last season we watched Christine give birth to daughter "Truly" (hence the insider up top) while courting and then marrying his new wife Robyn while introducing her three kids to the already pre-existing paternal 13. IN season two we watch as the family is battling charges of bigamy since "coming out" about their cultural lifestyle and face prosecution and family separation.

So, now that I have outed my confession, now time to elude to my convictions and thoughts of this show-which may surprise some of you as this is a blog I have battled to write for months now:

I don't understand why polygamy is illegal in America. Before you stop reading hear me out:

But we must note that while I think the Bible does seem to condemn homosexuality, I do not think it specifically condemns polygamy. So, Christians are in a bind here - they seem so confident to defend the 'biblical framework of the Christian family,' as the Pro-Family Network states, but what is that according to the Bible? I don't think it's as clear cut as Christians and Christian politicians would have us believe." There are a lot of disagreements among Christians on a lot of issues. The same is true of atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.

I understand the Christian argument and moral conflict we are discussing. God set the stage for a single man and woman to be joined together back in Genesis since the Garden of Eden. Looking from a New Testament glance, Jesus seems to have been siding with the anti-polygamists of His day in Matthew 19, and therefore I personally side on the stance that morally-polygamy is wrong.

Let me include some research on the matter: David In stone-Brewer writes:

"A move towards monogamy started very early, as evidenced by a gloss in the Septuagint and other early versions at Genesis 2:24, which read 'and they two shall become one flesh.' The word 'two' is not present in the Masoretic text, but it is found very widely in ancient versions. This gloss was included in the text when Jesus and Paul cited it. Although this gloss was widespread, it did not cause the Hebrew text to be changed. Even at Qumran, when they were amassing arguments against polygamy (see below), the text was not quoted in this form, and there is no example of the Hebrew text being quoted with the word 'two' in it. It appears that this gloss was a very common addition to the text, and that it was recognized as a comment on the text rather than a variant of it. This means that the purpose of the addition must have been obvious to the reader. The gloss affirmed that a marriage is made between only two individuals, and thus polygamy is an aberration....The significant point, as far as the Gospel text [Matthew 19] is concerned, is that this variant text is used very self-consciously, with the additional comment [Matthew 19:5] 'So they are no longer two but one' emphasizing the presence of the word 'two.'...Both [the gospel of] Mark and the Damascus Document [a document critical of polygamy] cite exactly the same portion of Genesis 1:27, and they both precede the quotation with a very similar phrase. Mark refers to 'the beginning of creation'...while the Damascus Document used the phrase 'the foundation of creation'...they are semantically identical....Jesus was making the point very strongly. He was saying not only that polygamy was immoral but that it was illegal. He gave scriptural proofs that polygamy was against God's will. This meant that the man's second marriage was invalid, and thus he was cohabiting with an unmarried woman." (Divorce And Remarriage In The Bible [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2002], pp. 61, 137-138, 151)

I see at least a few indications here that Jesus was siding with the anti-polygamists of His day:

1. He cites Genesis 1:27 with Genesis 2:24 (Matthew 19:4-5), a common anti-polygamist combination of scripture.

2. He quotes the anti-polygamist paraphrase of Genesis 2:24 (Matthew 19:5), not the original Hebrew, which has a history of use by anti-polygamists.

3. He emphasizes the word "two" by mentioning it again in Matthew 19:6.

4. He uses the phrase "from the beginning" (Matthew 19:8), which is known to have been used in anti-polygamist argumentation.

It should be noted that Paul also repeatedly uses the anti-polygamist rendering of Genesis 2:24 (1 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 5:31). Ephesians 5 is inherently anti-polygamist. Paul tells us that there's only one Christ and only one church (Ephesians 4:4-5), then he makes that relationship the model for the marriage relationship. He also uses the head/body imagery (Ephesians 5:23), and there can be only one head and one body. Paul goes on to cite Genesis 2:24 (Ephesians 5:31). I think that the most natural way to read Ephesians 5 is as a New Testament expansion of Genesis 2. In other words, Ephesians 5 is about the nature of all marriage, not just some marriages (monogamous marriages). To argue that Ephesians 5 doesn't apply to polygamists would be like arguing that Genesis 2 doesn't either. If polygamists aren't going to get their model for marriage from Genesis 2 or Ephesians 5, then where are they going to get it?

Romans 7:3 seems to be contrary to polygamy as well. Douglas Moo writes:

"he [Paul] certainly uses the word ['law'] in 6:14, 15 and in most of chap. 7 with reference to the Mosaic law...It is almost certain, then, that Paul here refers to the Mosaic law...Since Paul does not mention divorce, we can assume that the remarriage of the woman has taken place without a divorce of any kind; and any such remarriage is, of course, adulterous. Further, any body of law that Paul may be citing - Roman or OT (cf. Deut. 25:1-4) - allows for remarriage on grounds other than the death of the spouse." (The Epistle To The Romans [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1996], pp. 411-412, n. 24 on p. 413)

Some of the most explicit passages that can be cited against polygamy are from the Old Testament, such as Genesis 2 and Proverbs 5. In Proverbs 5, we aren't told to be satisfied with our wife if she's all God allows us to have. It isn't suggested that we could seek other women if we want to. Rather, we're told to be satisfied with her throughout our life. Solomon's answer to sexual temptation is monogamy with the wife of your youth, not polygamy. Bruce Waltke cites Proverbs 5 as an illustration of 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 and writes that "Marriage is here thought of as strongly monogamous." (The Book Of Proverbs: Chapters 1-15 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004], pp. 317, 321) Proverbs 5:17 refers to your wife being yours alone, which can only be monogamy, and the wife is referred to as satisfying the husband's sexual thirst, which is, again, monogamy. The woman is to meet the man's sexual desires "at all times" and "always" (Proverbs 5:19), which, again, can only be monogamy. Solomon is referring to sexual relations, so he can't be saying that a husband is to be always satisfied with his first wife, even as he's having sex with his second, third, and fourth wives. Similarly, Solomon writes in Ecclesiastes 9:9 about how one wife is the reward a man is given, as if he should be satisfied with her alone.

I think there are plausible alternative interpretations to the Old Testament passages people often cite in support of polygamy. But I also know that the patriarchs and kings: Abraham, Jacob, David-a man after God's own heart, and Solomon are a few polygamists that come to mind. IN each of these biblical settings I believe it was cultural permission rather than Godly blessings but each had their own moral ramifications and consequences. Abraham's union with Hagar paid a price that is still being wagered in Islam today, Jacob had 12 children from his four wives that lead to wifely rivals and favored children-but Joesph did save Egypt so they weren't all that cursed, David was a man after God's own heart and had 7 wives(1 Samuel 18:27, 25:42-43, 2 Samuel 3:2-5) but, then again, David was a murderous adulterer so I don't thing he should set our example. And Solomon, oh Solomon....he got a little carried away didn't he? I mean 100 women in his harem? One has to ask themselves if he even knew them all by name? And the bible states that Solomon's wives were his downfall. (1 Kings 11:4, 10)

Therefore as Christian examples of God's view in the way we should live The New Testament describes the nature of marriage as monogamous because it's monogamous by its nature, not because it's monogamous only in the societal context they're addressing.

On another more personal thought toward the issue:

I cannot fathom why any women in her right mind would choose such a lifestyle and want to share a husband? I mean honestly ladies, we have to admit that there are times that being married can be a challenge in itself at times. I for one know that I could never share my man in such an intimate way with another woman! (or women...) And from a feminist stand point one must note that polygamy is a Chauvinistic lifestyle. When has anyone ever heard of a woman wit multiple husbands? You don't because once a woman gets married she concurs that ONE IS ENOUGH!

Nonetheless, I find, myself drawn to this family due to pure curiosity as to how the lifestyle works for them. I have always bought literature on biblical women in polygamist families like: Sarah, The Red Tent, The Gilded Chamber and Queenmaker (-all must reads if you ask me!)So this show puts modern day perspective on the issue.

BUT...back to my question Why is Polygamy illegal in America?

Culturally speaking, from a current "American" standpoint, we are a nation of freedom of religion and so how can the state step in and say we are going to separate your family because we disagree with your lifestyle when their lifestyle is based on their culture of religion? All the children are well cared for and seem, might I add, happy. Kody drives a sweet ride and lives in a triplex type style home(one wing for each wife combined to form a common house) so he can afford the family financially. Off note-most polygamist cultures concur that a man should have as many wives as he can afford. So what's the beef?

Especially in a modern society where we allow multiple divorces and remarriages-prime example: Hugh Hefner who might as well be the modern day Solomon. We allocate welfare checks to families with multiple children from multiple spouses/partners where pimp daddy can boast of 17 kids from X amount of women broadcasting live on Jerry Springer. Society promotes abortion and "safe-sex" to anyone and everyone who wants it. And over 50% of marriages, yes even "christian" marriages end in divorce after 7 years. AND AND AND don't forget the passing of same sex "marriages" in several states (while California condones this illegal lifestyle and the courts are trying to call the common vote "unconstitutional!")

Our current foster system is a bit jacked up as many children in much worse living conditions are slipped through the fingers of the system, abused and sometimes murdered through such gaurdianships. So why would we take 16 kids from their loving home and through them in a system where they will be surely divided and many in homes with little love at all. Am I missing something?

If the lawful basis of anti-polygamy is based on moral code then we need to adjust our compass to some more encompassing issues! Do I want to live in a polygamist arrangement? H-E-double Hockey sticks NO! Do I condone this lifestyle for the majority? NO! But it works for these people and others in our country so why mess with them?

So there you have it-my moral dilemma. If you made it through the length of this post and the tangents that have ensued I am sure you have your own opinions on this issue. All feedback welcome! :)