couples search online for spare wife

[ModernPuritan?]

well, If the US is determined to legalize non Biblical forms of marriage, Id prefer they legalize polygamy instead of homosexual.

That is not a very logical or Biblical statement you just made. Both are sin.

right they are, didnt say they werent. just given the state of affairs in some states and such, i wonder which "NON biblical" form they will legalize

 

[TimV]

It's both logical and Biblical. The whole teaching of Christ about single marriages is directed to the church. There's no such burden upon anyone else. Moses allowed it because of the hardness of people's hearts. In other words the standards for running civil government are lower than the standards God expects for his people. You can't eat a wild animal that was killed by a predator, but you are more than welcome to sell it to a heathen.

And really, people. Just look at some of the countries that allow polygamy. What's the chance Iran, Pakistan, Kuwait etc.. are going to allow homos to get married just because they allow polygamy We already have a hundred cases where polygamy is legal and to my knowledge only South Africa allows homos the right to get married, and that's just because the ruling party feels it has to to throw a bone to the Western countries which supported it during the antiApartheid struggle. It will be illegal again in a few years, and polygamy will still be legal.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I have enough trouble as it is right now finding a wife, I can't imagine if I were supposed to find a second one!

that should be easy. there's always a shortage of good men. I being single have to literally buffet my flesh to not date because I am not ready.

 

[Stephen]

Goodness! Multiple wives means multiple Mother-in-Law's

That is a horrible situation. One mother-in-law is enough. That is enough reason to outlaw polygamy.

 

[bookslover]

One-man-one-woman marriage is the norm in Scripture; polygamy is just permitted.

I think it would be better to say that polygamy in the Old Testament was tolerated, rather than permitted, just as Jesus said that divorce was tolerated due to the hardness of people's hearts.

 

[bookslover]

The cynic in me notes that polygamy is mostly men looking for more than one wife - for sexual purposes, despite what they may claim to the contrary. How much multiple marriage consists of women looking for extra husbands (polyandry)? Not many, I'd bet...

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Well that would be Polyandry...

 

[toddpedlar]

It's both logical and Biblical. The whole teaching of Christ about single marriages is directed to the church. There's no such burden upon anyone else.

Two problems with this. First, marriage is a creation ordinance. It is from the beginning, before the giving of the Law, and before Christ preached. The standard for Adam (one wife) is the standard for all. All of Paul's reasoning about headship and mens/womens roles stems "from the beginning." Second, I'm not sure what you mean when you speak about Christ's teaching on single marriage. I don't know where I would find Him addressing the issue at all (or plural for that matter!).

Moses allowed it because of the hardness of people's hearts.

You seem to have divorce confused with plural marriage.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Uhm, actually, I have read of cases of women looking for more than one man...but it's treated more as having more than one boyfriend.

Now, Christian women forums and list do have to keep an eye out as there have been women joining to troll for prospective "second wives".

I also would not say that it's just men and the reason is purely lust. There are women that actually WANT to be in a poly relationship due to the a) not bearing the burden alone (housework, hubby, children) and b) in my opinion, possibly some psychological or emotional need to be part of something, some kind of community without joining a commune, or what have you. The largest defenders I've heard of polygamy have been women, not men (as someone joked, I think the men are scared of having too many mother-in-laws then add having to deal with women, their jealousies, etc. Yes, I would have to agree with the Chinese here).

 

[Gryphonette]

But consider 2 Samuel 12:7-8...

But, see, I'm not sure I buy the argument that Scripturally it's permissible.

Not every sin committed by the people in every Biblical story is condemned explicitly. Doesn't it seem that polygamy satisfies, at least, as a good and necessary consequence of Scripture as a whole, what we'd normally call sinful? Certainly there is no explicit command, "Thou shalt not take more than one wife," but the weight of Scripture, it seems to me, comes down against polygamy as a sinful act.

Now Bruce makes some good points about members in the church going outside the church and securing a second marriage via the civil magistrate. One needs to recognize that marriage as legal according to the state - but that need not require us to accept the act as something which is not sinful. I also agree that a man's multiple wives must be cared for - and that he is not to put away those wives when he converts. That would indeed be adding sin to sin - but the point is that his polygamy WAS and IS a sin... we can't for expediency's sake call it what it is not.

Remember? The bit where Nathan thunders at David "YOU are the man!"?

"Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more."

The LORD wouldn't have given David "wives" were it actually sinful for David to have them, I don't believe.

 

[toddpedlar]

But, see, I'm not sure I buy the argument that Scripturally it's permissible.

Not every sin committed by the people in every Biblical story is condemned explicitly. Doesn't it seem that polygamy satisfies, at least, as a good and necessary consequence of Scripture as a whole, what we'd normally call sinful? Certainly there is no explicit command, "Thou shalt not take more than one wife," but the weight of Scripture, it seems to me, comes down against polygamy as a sinful act.

Now Bruce makes some good points about members in the church going outside the church and securing a second marriage via the civil magistrate. One needs to recognize that marriage as legal according to the state - but that need not require us to accept the act as something which is not sinful. I also agree that a man's multiple wives must be cared for - and that he is not to put away those wives when he converts. That would indeed be adding sin to sin - but the point is that his polygamy WAS and IS a sin... we can't for expediency's sake call it what it is not.

Remember? The bit where Nathan thunders at David "YOU are the man!"?

"Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more."

The LORD wouldn't have given David "wives" were it actually sinful for David to have them, I don't believe.

Good text to consider, but I don't think it proves the case for acceptability of plural marriage.

The same God who said through Nathan "I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms" said that the King (of which David was an example) should not multiply wives, that his heart be turned away. Given this, is it not possible that what God has said is not any countenancing of the plural marriages that David walked into through gaining the crown, but that all this meant was "did I not give you everything that was Saul's, and yet you demand more?"

I could of course be wrong, but it seems to me the importance of this statement of the Lord's is that all that was Saul's David has succeeded to - including both house and wives (perhaps in some way a comprehensive statement of completeness of the succession). David has everything - now WHY has he gone after ANOTHER man's wife?

 

[Gryphonette]

I agree that's the primary thrust of that statement.

The same God who said through Nathan "I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms" said that the King (of which David was an example) should not multiply wives, that his heart be turned away. Given this, is it not possible that what God has said is not any countenancing of the plural marriages that David walked into through gaining the crown, but that all this meant was "did I not give you everything that was Saul's, and yet you demand more?"

I could of course be wrong, but it seems to me the importance of this statement of the Lord's is that all that was Saul's David has succeeded to - including both house and wives (perhaps in some way a comprehensive statement of completeness of the succession). David has everything - now WHY has he gone after ANOTHER man's wife?

Absolutely. The LORD - according to Nathan - was expressing his disappointment and exasperation with David's behavior.

But "I gave you...your master's wives into your arms" is a fairly explicit statement in and of itself, the meaning of which isn't changed because it's part of a larger statement. The LORD gave David those wives. He says so about as clearly as He could. How else could he phrase it so as to make it plainer, if that is indeed what He meant?

I'm reminded of the time several years ago when I was arguing with an egalitarian about the meaning of "But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything" (Eph. 5:24). If that doesn't mean women are supposed to submit to their husbands, as the egalitarian insisted, then how could the LORD have made it any clearer? What did He not say that He should have said?

She couldn't come up with anything.

"I gave your master's wives into your arms." If that's not the LORD saying that the reason David had those wives is because the LORD gave them to him, I cannot think of how else He could have phrased it so that it did mean that.

Mind, now, this is not me arguing in favor of polygamy as a Good Thing, but simply that it is not inherently sinful, for if it were, the LORD wouldn't have given men more than one wife (as the first cause; naturally, being sovereign, everything we do is part of His grand, overarching design).

 

[Vonnie Dee]

What's wrong with polygamy? O.k. polygamists can't be church elders but other than that. When, as in my location, schooling and employment is not readily available for females and there is no welfare system, for a widow becoming a second wife is the only option beside prostitution. Since the church here was founded by fundamentalists/legalists who believed in salvation by faith plus monogamy, polygamy is outlawed. Widows and their offspring are left to starve. Which is the greater evil--polygamy which, though not ideal, was never outlawed by scripture, or murder?

IDEALLY, the same church that outlawed polygamy should be taking care of the widows and ophans. Those commands came from the same Bible.

The examples of multiple marriage in the Bible most often are full of problems. There is favortism of one wife's children over the others. There is jealousy amongst the wives over amount of children. When you add the other religious beliefs of the other wives, you add a whole other world of problems. The Bible says that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.

Will it become legal? I don't know. I don't think it should. I do know that poligamist fathers are more invlolved with their children than many men with "baby's mamas" are. How many of them are just a paycheck to their children?

 

[toddpedlar]

But "I gave you...your master's wives into your arms" is a fairly explicit statement in and of itself, the meaning of which isn't changed because it's part of a larger statement. The LORD gave David those wives. He says so about as clearly as He could. How else could he phrase it so as to make it plainer, if that is indeed what He meant?
<snip>
"I gave your master's wives into your arms." If that's not the LORD saying that the reason David had those wives is because the LORD gave them to him, I cannot think of how else He could have phrased it so that it did mean that.

It seems to me that this is a case of letting the weight of Scripture bear on a hard-to-understand part of Scripture, as opposed to resting a case on a single text. Statements that seem clear on the face often have to be interpreted carefully (and perhaps in a way different than first blush - e.g. "The Lord repented that he had made man", which about as clear as day sounds like the Lord thinks He was in error for making man! We interpret that differently given that the rest of Scripture speaks differently of God with respect to making mistakes.) in the light of the whole Bible. Clarity of expression is not the only thing we have to consider (though I agree it is a factor).

Don't you think another reading is possible, and more likely, given the weight of the rest of Scripture? Perhaps what is meant is that David legitimately (as successor) could have chosen any of the wives of Saul (how many were there, anyway? I'm only aware of one, in addition to his concubine(s)... perhaps the word translated "wives" there should be interpreted as "women" of his household?) to be his own. Instead, what he did was choose an illegitimate route of adultery.

Mind, now, this is not me arguing in favor of polygamy as a Good Thing, but simply that it is not inherently sinful, for if it were, the LORD wouldn't have given men more than one wife (as the first cause; naturally, being sovereign, everything we do is part of His grand, overarching design).

This would take us down another path - that is, first cause, and not first cause - that would better be explored elsewhere. I also think with all due respect this distinction of things as "inherently not sinful" but "not a good thing" is somewhat of an icy sidewalk to stand on.

 

[Leslie]

Great point from Gryphonette.

Besides polygamy as a means of caring for widows without competent offspring, it is also a solution for men whose wives are disabled (e.g. severe rheumatoid arthritis making any movement excruciating). If sola scriptura is at all meaningful, we should cease and desist from legislating against anything it condones. Admittedly monogamy is preferable, but polygamy is clearly o.k.

In my situation, a neighbor, a young, barren widow, will starve to death when we return to the states for good. No Christian man will marry her because she will not produce children to care for him in his old age and he only gets to choose one wife. She can become a second or third wife, but this would entail marrying an unbeliever since the church rejects polygamists. She has land but cannot work the land by herself. She cannot hire help and still have the land provide for her. She has a fine Christian neighbor who could take her as a second wife, work her land, and provide for both her and his first family but the church won't allow it. Her barreness would be a blessing to the marriage, since he has 8 children already and great difficulty in providing for them. The church cannot support her because most of the church members are themselves hungry most of the time.

 

[Gryphonette]

It seems to me there is a difference, though.

It seems to me that this is a case of letting the weight of Scripture bear on a hard-to-understand part of Scripture, as opposed to resting a case on a single text. Statements that seem clear on the face often have to be interpreted carefully (and perhaps in a way different than first blush - e.g. "The Lord repented that he had made man", which about as clear as day sounds like the Lord thinks He was in error for making man! We interpret that differently given that the rest of Scripture speaks differently of God with respect to making mistakes.) in the light of the whole Bible. Clarity of expression is not the only thing we have to consider (though I agree it is a factor).

Don't you think another reading is possible, and more likely, given the weight of the rest of Scripture? Perhaps what is meant is that David legitimately (as successor) could have chosen any of the wives of Saul (how many were there, anyway? I'm only aware of one, in addition to his concubine(s)... perhaps the word translated "wives" there should be interpreted as "women" of his household?) to be his own. Instead, what he did was choose an illegitimate route of adultery.

The trouble with the "Lord repented" example - though it's a good one - is there is Scripture that can be set in stark contrast to it. In other words,, if your cited verse is literally true, then these other verses must be false:

Num. 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind."

1 Sam. 15:29 "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind."

Barring the injunction against elders having more than one wife, though, there is no similar clear statement that can be set against 2 Sam. 12:8.

The "LORD repented/He does not change His mind" couplings simply are difficult. One must be given greater weight and significance than the other.

I don't think the same can be truly said for 2 Sam. 12:8. That's difficult if one makes it difficult.

There's no doubt but that all of the LORD's favored people still sinned. David committed adultery then arranged for the woman's husband to be placed in harm's way so as to cover up his crime. Adultery, murder, deceit. There are verses in Scripture explicitly condemning each of these.

Jacob deceived his father so as to receive the blessing. Deception and lying, explicitly condemned in Scripture.

There's no similar condemnation of polygamy. There's a general sense that it's not wise, nor fitting, nor recommended, but that's not the same thing, I don't believe.

Think about Deut. 21:13-14: "If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn." And there is another passage wherein the LORD instructs men as to how they are to treat their first wife, not shortchanging her in favor of new wives, but I cannot find it now. Most annoying.

Are there other examples of the LORD giving instructions about an innately sinful activity in this way? Along the lines of, if you must steal, well, at least steal from someone who can afford to lose what's stolen. If you do defile the Sabbath day, at least don't do it like this, or make sure you do it like that.

I can't think of any, but might be overlooking something.

 

[Gryphonette]

I'm always up for receiving praise. ;^)

Great point from Gryphonette.

Besides polygamy as a means of caring for widows without competent offspring, it is also a solution for men whose wives are disabled (e.g. severe rheumatoid arthritis making any movement excruciating). If sola scriptura is at all meaningful, we should cease and desist from legislating against anything it condones. Admittedly monogamy is preferable, but polygamy is clearly o.k.

In my situation, a neighbor, a young, barren widow, will starve to death when we return to the states for good. No Christian man will marry her because she will not produce children to care for him in his old age and he only gets to choose one wife. She can become a second or third wife, but this would entail marrying an unbeliever since the church rejects polygamists. She has land but cannot work the land by herself. She cannot hire help and still have the land provide for her. She has a fine Christian neighbor who could take her as a second wife, work her land, and provide for both her and his first family but the church won't allow it. Her barreness would be a blessing to the marriage, since he has 8 children already and great difficulty in providing for them. The church cannot support her because most of the church members are themselves hungry most of the time.

However, make no mistake, I'd be firmly against the two thousand year old injunction by the Church against polygamy being scrapped so this woman can become the Christian man's second wife.

Two thousand years of consistent teaching is not to be dismissed because polygamy would be the easy answer to someone's plight.

You know, if this fine Christian man could afford to take her in as a barren second wife, then he can jolly well afford to take her in as a sister in Christ, or as an employee who works for room and board. Truly fine Christian men don't require sex as recompense for caring for a destitute widow.

If that's the way his mind works, though, she might be better off elsewhere.

Aping the behavior of the nonbelievers should not be regarded as a viable option. Where's the glory for the LORD in that?

This is a choice opportunity for the widow to draw a deep breath, close her eyes, grip the LORD's hand, and step out in faith, trusting in His loving providence.

For He will not let her starve if she looks to Him for her needs. He will not. He might easily let it look pretty bleak and hopeless before He pulls the rabbit out of the hat and reveals how He is going to provide for her, but provide He will.

Which will bring more glory to the LORD? Her - and the local church - showing they don't believe the LORD's promises of provision can be trusted by going against two thousand years of Christian tradition and giving in to polygamy, or praying and trusting in Him, so He can astonish everyone by how He works to provide for her?

I've a friend in very shaky temporal circumstances here in America, and it's been a humbling experience to watch her stubbornly and doggedly trust God to provide for her and her three children. And provide He does. Mind, He often waits until the last possible minute, which is nerve wracking, but He does. Over and over we've read her joyous posts telling of His incredible care for them, often in ways she could never have foreseen.

The LORD doesn't have to let y'all know in advance how He is going to provide for this dear lady. It's His right to wait for maximum impact, and let's face it....thinking of volcanic eruptions, and lightning displays, and fields of bluebonnets in the spring, our Creator is quite a showman at heart. He does enjoy being able to take a

.

Mimicking the unbelievers through polygamy will not advance the cause of Christ. Allowing Him to demonstrate to them that He can be trusted and relied upon to fulfill His promises will.

Over the years I've seen it proved time and again that the prayers of the saints are effective and availeth much. Keep reminding us of her (may we know her name?) and we will be lifting her up to the LORD, begging Him to glorify Himself by providing wondrously for her, in a way we can't imagine right now.

 

[greenbaggins]

I heard somewhere that in Chinese, the symbol for contentment is a house with a man and a woman in it. The symbol for strife is a house with a man and two women in it.

I heard on the news recently that physical fights between females appear to be increasing, and it was observed that when fights happen, girls (or women, I suppose) are almost invariably more vicious. Apparently when guys fight there's a goal in mind, and once the goal is achieved, the fight's over.

But when girls fight the goal is to cause pain and suffering and inflict injury. In other words,, that which is a means to an end for guys, is the end for girls.

Sad to say, I believe it. Females can be really nasty to each other.

You can certainly see that in the example of Leah and Rachel in the OT. They fought tooth and nail and mandrake all the way down the pike.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

One point about the legalization of certain "marriages": If certain people cannot make a "marriage" (and the Bible sets forth these limitations) then the union is no marriage at all, regardless of what a magistrate calls it.

Examples:
2 men
2 women
human and non-human
a union within the bounds of consanguinity (incestuous unions)
any other union forbidden by the Word

These are simply not marriages, and no legalese will make them so.

 

[Richard King]

Goodness! Multiple wives means multiple Mother-in-Law's

WOW! I never thought of that! That settles it for me.

I was thinking though I am scared to buy a fiddle over the internet so there is just no way I would get a wife there.

 

[BJClark]

Goodness! Multiple wives means multiple Mother-in-Law's

And multiple Father in laws making sure these men are carrying out their duties to provide for ALL their wives and children.

Be it the mother of the bride or the mother of the groom or another woman trying to interfer--more than one woman trying to be the husbands helper is to many!!!

Just as if a woman were to have multiple husbands, it would cause strife in knowing who a childs father is, and neither of the men would want to care financially for the children...

 

[TimV]

Just as if a woman were to have multiple husbands, it would cause strife in knowing who a childs father is, and neither of the men would want to care financially for the children...

Another good, practical reason for the illegality of polyandry under Biblical law.

 

[turmeric]

Multiple mother-in-laws! That would scare anybody straight!

 

[bookslover]

Mind, now, this is not me arguing in favor of polygamy as a Good Thing, but simply that it is not inherently sinful...

Should Mr. Gryphonette (Mr. Gryphon?) come home some day from work with his arm around the waist of a beautiful woman and say to you, "Honeybunch? Meet the new Mrs. - No. 2!" be sure to let us know what you then think of the situation's alleged lack of inherent sinfulness...

 

[Gryphonette]

[shocked] Mr. Gryphon(ette) is a law-abiding man.

Should Mr. Gryphonette (Mr. Gryphon?) come home some day from work with his arm around the waist of a beautiful woman and say to you, "Honeybunch? Meet the new Mrs. - No. 2!" be sure to let us know what you then think of the situation's alleged lack of inherent sinfulness...

He'd never be so wicked.

[darkly] If he knows what's good for him, anyway.

On a more serious note, what is or is not sinful isn't determined by my - or anyone else's - feelings.

That's a real problem these days, AAMOF...people using their feelings as a barometer as to whether or not something is sinful, rather than Scripture.

 

[DMcFadden]

Should Mr. Gryphonette (Mr. Gryphon?) come home some day from work with his arm around the waist of a beautiful woman and say to you, "Honeybunch? Meet the new Mrs. - No. 2!" be sure to let us know what you then think of the situation's alleged lack of inherent sinfulness...

He'd never be so wicked.

[darkly] If he knows what's good for him, anyway.

On a more serious note, what is or is not sinful isn't determined by my - or anyone else's - feelings.

That's a real problem these days, AAMOF...people using their feelings as a barometer as to whether or not something is sinful, rather than Scripture.

1. I pity the fool who would look elsewhere while married to our PB sis. He would have to be a total dufus as well as wicked!
2. Thank you! This obsession with feelings over commitments and especially over the Word of God is the bane of our society!

 

[Leslie]

Polygamy simply is not forbidden in scripture and no amount of adding tradition to scripture will make it forbidden in my mind. If one espouses sola scriptura, then sola scriptura it must be, devoid of cultural accretions.

The woman's name is Amarech. She and her late husband adopted an infant who was abandoned to my care but on whom I could not get the proper papers to send him on to the states. The boy is now 3 years old; he potentially could care for her in her old age but she'll starve to death before he's able to be gainfully employed. The Christian neighbor in question does plow her land, whether gratis or not, I don't know.

For you pastoral sorts, what would you do concerning a recently-converted polygamist. Would you require him to divorce his excess wives before admitting him to baptism and the Lord's table, or would you permit him to remain as is? I've not a clue as to how to set up a poll but if someone else can, that should be interesting.

 

[Gryphonette]

Keeping in mind I'm no pastor.....

Polygamy simply is not forbidden in scripture and no amount of adding tradition to scripture will make it forbidden in my mind. If one espouses sola scriptura, then sola scriptura it must be, devoid of cultural accretions.

The woman's name is Amarech. She and her late husband adopted an infant who was abandoned to my care but on whom I could not get the proper papers to send him on to the states. The boy is now 3 years old; he potentially could care for her in her old age but she'll starve to death before he's able to be gainfully employed. The Christian neighbor in question does plow her land, whether gratis or not, I don't know.

For you pastoral sorts, what would you do concerning a recently-converted polygamist. Would you require him to divorce his excess wives before admitting him to baptism and the Lord's table, or would you permit him to remain as is? I've not a clue as to how to set up a poll but if someone else can, that should be interesting.

....but no, I wouldn't require an already-existing polygamous marriage to be broken up if the family comes to Christ. The man couldn't add any wives, but those he has, he has.

With one caveat!

The plural marriages have to be legal. In other words,, a polygamous union in the US would have to split up, seeing as how polygamy's illegal here so the man and his extra wives are not actually married.

But so long as we're talking about - as I assume we are - marriages that are properly registered and legal and recognized in the family's home country, then the Church should shake its head but ruefully accept them as they stand.

 

[Pergamum]

Choosing Valentine's and Christmas gifts for one wife is hard enough....wow, imagine buying a Valentine's Day card for a whole set of wives! "My one true love!" "Your the only one for me.." "Only you!" None of those seem to work. Maybe "To my Tuesday, Thursday love..." or "To my kitchen help and child bearer..."

 

[Pergamum]

Polygamy simply is not forbidden in scripture and no amount of adding tradition to scripture will make it forbidden in my mind. If one espouses sola scriptura, then sola scriptura it must be, devoid of cultural accretions.

The woman's name is Amarech. She and her late husband adopted an infant who was abandoned to my care but on whom I could not get the proper papers to send him on to the states. The boy is now 3 years old; he potentially could care for her in her old age but she'll starve to death before he's able to be gainfully employed. The Christian neighbor in question does plow her land, whether gratis or not, I don't know.

For you pastoral sorts, what would you do concerning a recently-converted polygamist. Would you require him to divorce his excess wives before admitting him to baptism and the Lord's table, or would you permit him to remain as is? I've not a clue as to how to set up a poll but if someone else can, that should be interesting.

I know a missionary who grew up in west africa whose parents also ministered in West Africa. His missions's policy (I won't mention the group) was actually to encourage divorce of polygamous families until the man only had 1 wife.

This led to a rise in begging, prostitution and illigitimacy and also the men almost always picked the youngest and most nubile bride and the old faithful first wife that bore him the majority of children was sometimes left to begging. Therefore these missionaries were actually agents of sin in these cultures.


Here where I am at, polygamy sometimes exists but church leaders are not allowed to lead if polygamous. Some polygamous families are members of churches and in good standing, but even here the social stigma often drives off polygamists from uniting closely with the local Christian community in some parts.

There is a trickle down effect and the practice is dying off (though I have still met some pretty LARGE families in some places).

P.S. a compromise "solution" by one mission group I know of in Africa allowed polygamy but only wife wife could live with the husband and he had to build separate housing for the rest away from his house. THis led still to great inequity between the children and they were considered almost like illegitimate children despite the legal status as children.

Also, and this is shocking to some, this neglects the very real Scriptural sexual duty between husbands and wives (no matter the number) and that they are not to refrain unless for times of fasting, etc. I.e. celibacy is actually sinful in marriage unless under certain conditions, and it does not seem the polygamy is such a condition. Under this compromise "solution" the man was only to have intercourse with one wife and the others were forciblymade celibate and (because the community knew) they essentially were treated not as full wives, like the children, despite the legal status as wives.