converts to christianity from culture of polygamy

[RJ]

I tried to see if this question was addressed elsewhere on this forum and could not locate any posts which discussed it. What is your view on the following situation encountered by some missionaries who labor in remote, completely paganized parts of the world where polygamy is common practice..e.g. when people living in this unbiblical state come to know Christ, how are they advised to deal with their multiple marriages, in light of the Word of God? Are the new converts to abandon all but the first of these marriages? Do you have any idea how this has been handled throughout church history? I would imagine there are different approaches.Thank you for any light you may be able to shed.

[steve]

I believe that it has been the practice of western missionaries to require, in such cases, the separation of the husband from all but the first of his wives. I personally find this practice to be unbiblical and even evil.

While the Bible nowhere specifically condemns polygamy, it does condemn divorce. In a society which allows polygamy, the husbands and wives have every right to believe that each of the marriages will be lifelong, and that the children of such marriages will have both of their parents to bring them up. To split up families is, in my mind, the devil's work.

I believe that polygamy is a practice abandoned by Christianity, not because of direct commands forbidding it, but because of an increased understanding, provided by New Testament revelation, of what ideal marriage was created to be. In a culture where marriage is viewed primarily as the means of bringing children into the world, and as a means of providing security for women, polygamy has often been viewed as consistent with these worthy goals. The New Testament reveals, however, that marriage is supposed to depict the mystery of Christ and the church, an ideal that calls for monogamy. Therefore, I believe that Christians should uphold the ideal of monogamy—not sanctioning any additional marriages for those already married to one spouse—though they should also uphold the sanctity of marriages that have already been legitimately contracted.

I guess my thoughts on this are out of sinc with those of most missionary agencies of the past, and perhaps not in agreement with others here, but I find an unjustified divorce to be a great injustice, whereas I believe that a polygamous family to be no injustice, if all the adult parties entered the arrangement willingly. The Bible nowhere indicates that the polygamy of Abraham, of Jacob, of Elkanah, of David or Solomon were viewed as adultery in the sight of God. But groundless divorce is akin to adultery in the teaching of Jesus.

Those are my thoughts.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
While the Bible nowhere specifically condemns polygamy...

{and}

The New Testament reveals, however, that marriage is supposed to depict the mystery of Christ and the church, an ideal that calls for monogamy. Therefore, I believe that Christians should uphold the ideal of monogamy—not sanctioning any additional marriages for those already married to one spouse—though they should also uphold the sanctity of marriages that have already been legitimately contracted.

I fail to see where the mysterious iconography of marriage requires a moratorium on "sanctioning any additional marriages" - particularly if it is held that "the Bible nowhere specifically condemns polygamy." Let us imagine, for example, the plight of a man with four young children and no extended family, whose wife has suffered head trauma and is (barring a miraculous recovery) permanently in an infantile state. Shall this man and his children be restricted, in effect, to singlehood/single-parenthood for the sake of iconography?

A religious tradition that inveighs so strongly against Jews manufacturing laws - shall it turn and manufacture its own?

[steve]

I did not say there was a law. Nor did I create a law. I indicated what should not be done on the basis of principle. I did not assign any penalties for noncompliance.

It is hard to raise children without a wife (I know. I have had to do so with five children, and did not do very well). However, if the man in the illustration has made vows to his wife to "forsake all others" for "as long as we both shall live," then I believe he should keep this, as well as all other promises he has made, regardless of the difficulties involved. In a society where promises of monogamy were neither verbalized, implied, nor expected in the marriage contract, the issues might be otherwise. I also believe that the wife of a soldier with small children should remain faithful to her husband, even if he is indefinitely missing in action and "presumed dead."

Sometimes one finds he has sworn "to his own hurt." In such cases, a man of integrity will "not change" his course for the sake of convenience (Psalm 15:4). Good men have always known this.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
I did not say there was a law. Nor did I create a law. I indicated what should not be done on the basis of principle. I did not assign any penalties for noncompliance.

You did indicate the withholding of sanction. What are the practical implications of this in a congregational community? Presumably the polygamous weddings could not be celebrated and consecrated by the congregation and its leadership. And presumably the polygamous marriages would be looked at askance by the "principled" and "compliant" members of the community. And so, on the basis of some inferred principle, a sacred and fundamental domestic relationship becomes publicly marginalized and shamed.

You say that your scripture does not condemn polygamy. What your scripture does say is that marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled. But by your "indication," blameless marriages are deprived of honor.

steve wrote:
However, if the man in the illustration has made vows to his wife to "forsake all others" for "as long as we both shall live," then I believe he should keep this, as well as all other promises he has made, regardless of the difficulties involved. In a society where promises of monogamy were neither verbalized, implied, nor expected in the marriage contract, the issues might be otherwise. I also believe that the wife of a soldier with small children should remain faithful to her husband, even if he is indefinitely missing in action and "presumed dead."

Sometimes one finds he has sworn "to his own hurt." In such cases, a man of integrity will "not change" his course for the sake of convenience (Psalm 15:4). Good men have always known this.

If the man has made vows, then such is a separate concern. But a Christian community should hardly encourage the taking of such vows in the first place (q.v., Matthew 5:33-37). And many persons nowadays write their own vows, which may not include those once-common phrases.

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
I also believe that the wife of a soldier with small children should remain faithful to her husband, even if he is indefinitely missing in action and "presumed dead."

By the way, one solution to this problem in Jewish tradition has been to issue a provisional writ of divorce for combat soldiers, which only goes into effect in the event of the soldier being missing in action. This artifice probably would be distasteful to some persons, while others would see it as an act of selfless love on the part of the combat soldier.