Mark Twain and the Polygamist
There’s a story of a polygamist who argued over polygamy with Mark Twain. The polygamist insisted that polygamy was moral, and he defied Twain to cite any Bible verse that forbade it. “Well,” said Twain, “how about where Jesus says, ‘No man can serve two masters?'”
Now I ask; what makes this joke funny? And for those of you who don’t realize it, it is a joke. It’s funny because we know that a woman is NOT supposed to be the master of her husband. But according to the “Love Not Force” crowd, the moment the man mentions he’d like an additional wife… or two, his first wife must be given the power of a master. After all, who other than a master, would be handed the keys to a man’s posterity? Who other than a master would be handed the keys to unlock a man’s creative super power to reap for the Lord those future generations of Christian men and women who might flow from a man’s loins. Who other than a master would be given the keys to unlock the man’s ability to please God by wisely investing his resources, those talents, and yes, I am citing the parable of the talents, those resources given to him by the Lord to sow, that the Lord might reap future generations of His children. God bestows on men, not their wives, the ability to invest those talents. And Christian men will be expected to give an account to the Lord when He returns, or when they meet Him in heaven. The parable of the talents applies to a man’s posterity every bit as much, and more, than it does to other aspects of his life.
Waxed mighty is the phrase used to describe men in the Bible who had many children:
“But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives, and begat twenty and two sons, and sixteen daughters.” 2 Chronicles 13:21
“And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.” Exodus 1:7
“Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.” Exodus 1:20
They waxed mighty, they increased mightily!
That precious first command of the Lord to multiply
is more than a command, more than a gift, it is a resource,
a talent, that we must not bury in the ground.
The power to proCreate!
A man’s fertility is his, and his only, and only he will answer to the Lord for his refusal to wisely invest the talents God has given him. Do not deceive yourselves like the wicked servant in the parable of the talents. There is nothing safe or loving about refusing to multiply! It is tantamount to hating God’s image! There is nothing loving about refusing to raise up generations of Christian men and women. A man’s fertility is his most precious resource that God has given to him. He must invest wisely and not bury it like the wicked servant.
“For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.“ Matthew 25:29-30
One of the favorite ways the Love Not Force crowd tries to confuse you into thinking they’re right, is to claim that your marriage ceremony included the phrase, “forsaking all others.” However, many, if not most of today’s marriages in Christian Churches, do not include those words! You can view a link to many wedding vows on Bible.org’s website and none of their sample vows contain those words: “forsaking all others.”
Now, let’s accept the straw dog that the Love Not Force crowd puts forth and pretend that our wedding vows did include the term, “forsaking all others. Most men, not for the slightest moment, would think that those three words were meant to be a ban on polygamy, they would think that the line forsaking all others referred to not letting in-laws, parents, siblings, or society intrude into that most awesome relationship called marriage. Most men would not even think about the words they were saying. After all, they were simply repeating the standard vows of a marriage and if they were Christians they would not for the slightest moment think that they were inserting words that were dreamed up by popish ministers as a ban on polygamy hundreds of years ago. They simply would not know the history of wedding vows. So the words that a man repeats in a marriage ceremony mean nothing more than what he understands them to mean at that moment. He has not made a vow to uphold the exegesis of those words as if they came out of the Bible. If anywhere, they came out of Satan’s mouth. They do not mean what the wife thinks they mean and they do not mean what society thinks they mean but they mean exactly what the man thinks they mean at that moment as God witnesses his thoughts and most men aren’t thinking ANYTHING when they utter those words. We are not speaking of a subjective morality here. The man simply has no reference that would place for one moment in his mind that he was making an anti-polygamy vow. So that brings us back to one fact. Most men do not even know what marriage is (ask any Christian to define it) and yet he is agreeing to marriage. If he is a strong believer then he at least knows that he is agreeing to Biblical Marriage, nothing more and nothing less. The fact is, popish ministers began inserting the words, “forsaking all others”, a few hundred years ago, to clarify that they were against polygamy. This is because some of the most famous Christians of their era, including Martin Luther, Bernardino Ochino, John of Leyser, and others, favored polygamy as an option.
It is of note that many, if not most of the ceremonies that include the phrase “forsaking all others,” follow it with a question to those attending the wedding. The question goes as follows:
“All of you who have witnessed these promises, will you do everything in your power to support and uphold these two people in their marriage?”
Doesn’t this sound to you like the “forsaking all others” clause has come to mean forsaking the intrusion by those in-laws, friends, and family that might try to wreck the marriage? Gossip is a terrible thing. That was the way I always understood it. I witnessed marriages with those vows long before I had an interest in the study of polygamy and the idea that polygamy was being spoken of in those vows never entered my mind. BE HONEST! You’re telling me that whenever you heard the “forsaking all others” clause at a wedding you thought to yourself, “now there’s the anti-polygyny clause” and whenever you heard the woman’s “forsaking all others” clause that you thought to yourself, “now there’s the anti-polyandry clause.” C’mon! Whoever would guess that in a monogamous society there would be an anti-polygyny and anti-polyandry clause in wedding vows? Does that make sense?
Now the question comes up; what if you were knowingly making a vow not to take other wives and you want to get out of that vow so that you can have an additional wife. Is that vow binding considering the Bible allows a man to have more than one wife? Here’s what that wedding was really about:
The written civil marriage contract superseded any vows you took!
You signed a civil document that stated the terms. That document states that the written contract defines the marriage, NOT YOUR WORDS! And certainly not your pastor, priest, or any other officiant present at your wedding. In fact, the document you signed is licensed harlotry, for by the precedents under which the marriage contract will adjudicated in case of divorce, it allows your woman to put you away! Yet there is no Bible basis for a wife divorcing her husband. And if the contract gives you both the power to do the exact opposite of your spoken vows, the vows are nothing more than wind. And worse than that, if there could be anything worse, the contract absolves your wife from any fault if she fornicates or commits adultery!
AND YOU SIGNED IT!
Now you may ask, what if my church has special counseling where they claim authority over my marriage, such as the Roman Catholic church. If that is the case, then you are giving man (your church) power to put asunder what God has joined. On earth, there has only been one authority to dissolve a marriage, and that is the husband:
Matthew 19:6c … let not man put asunder.
A Good Woman Practices Servant Followership
Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.
How much worse if a man puts on a woman’s behavior? A man who vows a woman’s vow, that he shall not retain the right of a man to have more than one wife, has vowed an abominable vow.
But most men have not made this vow! They just think they made it.
Renouncing such a vow and declaring it an abomination is an act of repentance, not an act of covenant breaking. If a man vowed at his wedding that he would forever wear a woman’s garments, would such a vow be valid? God forbid! Abominable vows, abominable covenants, or abominable whatever you want to call them, are never valid. A man who vows an abominable vow must renounce the abomination and make clear to the world that he will not “put on a woman’s behavior.” If you think that a contract with the Devil is valid, please read the Bible from cover to cover, take two aspirins (if you’re not allergic) get plenty of rest, and talk to me next time.
The Love Not Force Crowd uses invective.
This is a disingenuous manner of dialoging.
Instead of stepping up and entering into an honest discussion of how to gently bring a second wife into the marriage, the Love Not Force crowd has introduced invective. To them, love is for wives to whom they’ve given authority, but invective is for those who remain lords in their own households. And their invective is misandrist. (man hating.)
This cruel invective does three things:
1.) It denounces men who would dare to disagree.
2.) It abuses men who disagree by insinuation.
3.) It censures discourse by the use of invective.
Consider first the following weak statement that they don’t use:
“I can’t possibly agree with what you’re proposing. We adhere to Permission Slip Polygamy.”
Apparently the promoters of Permission Slip Polygamy know that their concept is so weak that they must turn to political tactics to attack those who disagree with them. Instead of debating Permission Slip Polygamy, they create a name that of itself condemns those who would disagree.
Consider the tactic they actually use.
“I can’t possibly agree with what you’re proposing. We adhere to Love Not Force.”
The statement insinuates that the man they’re scolding is not loving and that the man is proposing to force something on somebody. But not for a moment does the Love Not Force crowd realize that forcing men to limit their children by not taking more wives is limiting their ability to follow God’s command to multiply. It is literally forcing them to sin!
How many children have not been born
Because of so-called Love Not Force!
Because the phrase doesn’t say something like “love not brutality” or “love not bondage” the reader doesn’t realize the intensity of the accusation but it’s there all the same. It accuses those who don’t agree with those who invoke this invective as being unloving and of forcing something on someone, specifically of being misogynists*. It shouts, “Either you’re one of us or you’re a misogynist.”
Imagine if someone said to you,
“I can’t possibly agree with what you’re proposing. We adhere to Love Not Butchery.”
You’d immediately know that they were calling you an unloving butcher!
The names we call our doctrines should not be invectives. I call upon all the “Love not Forcers” to call it what it is: Permission Slip Polygamy. And yes, I am most certainly questioning the motives for selecting an invective for the name of a doctrine and moreover, the motives for retaining it.
I’ve listed below some other well known invectives that will demonstrate that the used of invectives does nothing to further an honest dialog. Have you ever been accused with one of these invectives?
Love not Gender – against biblical relationships
Love not Bondage – against traditional marriage
Love not Legalism – against those who observe the Sabbath
Love not Guns – against self defense
Love not War – against a nation’s responsibility to defend itself
Love not Greed – against private property rights
Love not Religion – against Christianity
Invectives such as “Love Not Force” have no place in Christian dialog. The affect is to bring out the misandrist* in the reader by planting the thought: “Those beasts! How could they teach force instead of love!” We urge those who teach that you must get a Permission Slip from your wife in order to take additional wives, to simply call it what it is: Permission Slip Polygamy.
Note: Definitions:
“Love Not Force” – Permission Slip Polygamy
misogynist – woman hater
misandrist – man hater
