Thread: Should Polygamists divorce after conversion

This is kind of a spilt from the other polygamy thread that got me thinking...

Say a man or tribal king in a third world country has multiple wives, hears the gospel, repents of his sins and believes the gospel, should he or should he not divorce his wives and only keep one wife? I would say no he should not divorce his wives. I would qualify his polygamy would exclude him from any church office, but he should not divorce his wives.

Another scenario: Here in Utah polygamy is still common. Usually you can spot them in public because they wear the old fashion pioneer outfits. Same situation a modern day polygamist becomes a Christian should they divorce their wives.

In the OPC and in Uganda in particular we are seeing a lot of this. A man may become an elder in the church with multiple wives (having married them before conversion of course). What is happening is young men are telling the church that they have multiple wives so that they may actually marry additional women later. They kind of trade off violating the 7th commandment for the 9th.

Several things must be noted:

1. It's a case-by-case basis, I'm sure, depending on the Session and people involved.
2. I don't know if "divorce" is the answer, but might agree that the man should be sexually devoted to one of the wives (Probably the first wife; however, who, exactly, may need to be determined by the Session), while financially and otherwise supporting the other(s).
3. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I say that with the qualifications given above.

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

In the OPC and in Uganda in particular we are seeing a lot of this. A man may become an elder in the church with multiple wives (having married them before conversion of course). What is happening is young men are telling the church that they have multiple wives so that they may actually marry additional women later. They kind of trade off violating the 7th commandment for the 9th.

Just curious how is he or they allowed to become an elder if they are not the husband of one wife? Why are they even being considered to be elders if they already have more then one wife? I guess maybe this might be the norm and all the men have more then one wife?

I don't have a definitive answer. However, as much as I desise polygamy, we should probably take into account that in some cultures, a husband divorcing several of his wives would leave them without food, shelter etc. In the US, of course, this is not the case, so I would think divorce would be a more tenable option. In an African or Asian culture, divorce might have really dire consequences for the divorced wife.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Several things must be noted:

1. It's a case-by-case basis, I'm sure, depending on the Session and people involved.
2. I don't know if "divorce" is the answer, but might agree that the man should be sexually devoted to one of the wives (Probably the first wife; however, who, exactly, may need to be determined by the Session), while financially and otherwise supporting the other(s).
3. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I say that with the qualifications given above.

This is good food for thought.

No matter what, Exodus 21:10 comes into play: he still must provide for his wives. In this light, however, Calvin comments that "The Lord pronounces divorce to be more tolerable than polygamy" (Comm. on Gen. 29:27). Vermigli appears also to be of the same mind (that divorce is preferable), but presents a more nuanced view:

If the Turke at this daie, with his two wiues, should be conuerted unto Christ; might that polygamie be suffered in christian religion? Surelie it might be suffered for a time, for they with a good conscience agreed betweene themselues. Neither must iniurie be doone unto those wiues: for euerie of them hath right in hir husband. And that lawe, which Christ made, must be of force (as we hue said) for the time to come. That which now is doone with a good conscience and in probable ignorance, cannot be undoone. Howbeit, an other kind of answer is made heerof, in the Decrees of diuorcements, in the last lawe. If the first wife will dwell together with hir husbad, she shall be counted for the wife, and the rest to be dismissed; if the first will not, the next must be had in that place: and so of the rest. (Loci Communes 2.10)

Exactly, in the culture, polygamy has been the norm for so long that the most respected men, those with leadership abilities have multiple wives. If you want men from the community to be elders then you have to pick a man who has multiple wives. The marriage covenant (even though multiple) outweighs forced divorce.

In these same villages, cattle stealing is the village business. You raid other villages for their cattle and they raid yours, this is their concept of employment, it is their economy. The missionaries teach them to grow things and barter.

These are the puzzles that missionaries face, how do you tell them that the Bible says their long established way of life is in conflict with God's clear commands. The law is written on their hearts but thousands of years of culture have minimized the affect.

Originally Posted by Blue Tick

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

In the OPC and in Uganda in particular we are seeing a lot of this. A man may become an elder in the church with multiple wives (having married them before conversion of course). What is happening is young men are telling the church that they have multiple wives so that they may actually marry additional women later. They kind of trade off violating the 7th commandment for the 9th.

Just curious how is he or they allowed to become an elder if they are not the husband of one wife? Why are they even being considered to be elders if they already have more then one wife? I guess maybe this might be the norm and all the men have more then one wife?

A missionary or a preacher should NOT encourage the sin of divorce in these cases.

In the past missionaries have been the agents of making children into bastards and women into one step above prostitutes due to encouraging the casting off all but one wife of formerly polygamous couples. Poverty and illegitimacy of children were the result of mission policies and, to guard against poverty, the women (damaged goods who were unmarriageable) often turned to prostitution to support their children.

If a tribal man was told only to take one wife, he would often desert the oldest mother of his children for the youngest and most nubile.

If all but one wife had to separate and live apart, then these "wives" still were seen as second-class and this turned out to be "divorce-lite".



If God was patient enough to deal with the patriarchs' polygamy for thousands of years, missionaries and churches can be patient for a generation or two until monogamy becomes the norm.

These families should not be denied church leadership or the Lord's Table, but church leadership would not be an option for a polygamous man.


If these marriages are true marriages, then sexual intercourse within these marriages is NOT adultery, and marriage is STILL a saeguard against lust for the one man AND his multiple wives and, as normally as possible, the man and his multiple wives should function as marrieds.

-----Added 8/25/2009 at 01:08:31 EST-----

Originally Posted by Prufrock

No matter what, Exodus 21:10 comes into play: he still must provide for his wives. In this light, however, Calvin comments that "The Lord pronounces divorce to be more tolerable than polygamy" (Comm. on Gen. 29:27). Vermigli appears also to be of the same mind (that divorce is preferable), but presents a more nuanced view:

If the Turke at this daie, with his two wiues, should be conuerted unto Christ; might that polygamie be suffered in christian religion? Surelie it might be suffered for a time, for they with a good conscience agreed betweene themselues. Neither must iniurie be doone unto those wiues: for euerie of them hath right in hir husband. And that lawe, which Christ made, must be of force (as we hue said) for the time to come. That which now is doone with a good conscience and in probable ignorance, cannot be undoone. Howbeit, an other kind of answer is made heerof, in the Decrees of diuorcements, in the last lawe. If the first wife will dwell together with hir husbad, she shall be counted for the wife, and the rest to be dismissed; if the first will not, the next must be had in that place: and so of the rest. (Loci Communes 2.10)

I would disagree with Calvin here; polygamy is more tolerable than divorce, because divorce is explicitly condemned while polygamy is dealt with more gently.

The goal is always to bring the culture in line with the principles of scripture. In Karamoja, a cheap wife is only 10 cows but some wives can go for 100 head of cattle. A young man is not established until he has a wife and so he needs cattle. The village elder will give the young man 20 bullets, 10 for attacking and killing Kenyan tribesman and stealing their cattle and 10 more to defend himself on the way back. If a young man cannot come up with enough cattle in a certain time then his wife and children can be given away to another man.

None of this is normative behavior and all of this behavior must be discouraged and changed and in order to do that you need leaders brought into the church and 'christianized'. It doesn't mean polygamy is normalized but the first baby steps in transforming men and culture for the Gospel.

Yes, we must remember the patience of God towards the patriarchs for a multiplied hundreds of years as we try to encourage monogamy among tribal peoples and get it monogamy established within a short generation or two.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

No matter what, Exodus 21:10 comes into play: he still must provide for his wives. In this light, however, Calvin comments that "The Lord pronounces divorce to be more tolerable than polygamy" (Comm. on Gen. 29:27). Vermigli appears also to be of the same mind (that divorce is preferable), but presents a more nuanced view:

If the Turke at this daie, with his two wiues, should be conuerted unto Christ; might that polygamie be suffered in christian religion? Surelie it might be suffered for a time, for they with a good conscience agreed betweene themselues. Neither must iniurie be doone unto those wiues: for euerie of them hath right in hir husband. And that lawe, which Christ made, must be of force (as we hue said) for the time to come. That which now is doone with a good conscience and in probable ignorance, cannot be undoone. Howbeit, an other kind of answer is made heerof, in the Decrees of diuorcements, in the last lawe. If the first wife will dwell together with hir husbad, she shall be counted for the wife, and the rest to be dismissed; if the first will not, the next must be had in that place: and so of the rest. (Loci Communes 2.10)

I once had a typewriter that seemed to produce sentences like this.




It would seem there are two tracks here- one legal (i.e. cultural), the other biblical.

In the cultural legal sense, he is "married" to several wives, whatever the culture imagines "marriage" to be.

In the other sense, biblically, he is not married to several wives. Rather, he is committing adultery, bearing false witness, etc. (as are his "wives")

So, if he becomes a Christian and realizes the latter situation, I don't see how he could continue to commit adultery and bear false witness (let alone be qualified I Timothy 3 to office of deacon, elder, bishop, etc.)

Now there may be some sort of contractual principle or equitable principle that might apply to not abandoning someone who has become dependent on him, but that is not based on marriage (biblically).

He should not divorce, neither should he abandon any of his wives. To "remain married" but to abandon all but one wife would mock marriage & the law of God.

Ok, next question: Has anyone ever been in this situation first hand? Maybe Perg? How was it dealt with?

In one case the indigenous church un-installed a pastor because, already being a Christian and a pastor, he took a second wife as his prestiage increased.

Originally Posted by Kevin

He should not divorce, neither should he abandon any of his wives. To "remain married" but to abandon all but one wife would mock marriage & the law of God.

Couldn't we already say he has and is mocking marriage and the law of God by continuing to represent marriage as something it is not?

**ADMIN Closure***

I'm making a decision to close this thread, and any such other threads dealing with Polygamy. We have hashed most of the nuances of it all out as much as is beneficial (and probably more) for a message board. As for the question of this thread, it's a good one; however, it's clear there will be no strong consensus on the matter. Therefore, we'll leave this up to the respective Reformed & Calvinistic denominations, presbyteries, and sessions as to how they'll deal with it.

So, no more threads concerning Polygamy for a while.

Thanks!

P.S. - This is not necessarily a final decision, as it will be discussed with the other Admins & MODs (with the exception of Bawb, because he's at a male modeling shoot). The other Admins and Mods may give me a brow-beating for being so hasty! If so, well, I guess we'll open it back up, then I'll be tarred and feathered.