Post 186--Is Polygamy Sin?

This morning I received a letter from Gani Yohanna, either a son or grandson of my former Nigerian colleague Ifraimu Gani during my Nigeria missionary years.  Among other items, he raised the above question.  

It seems like a fairly straight forward issue that requires little more than either a "yes" or a "no."  Unfortunately, it ain't quite that simple. Not only is this a matter of Bible interpretation in the context of ever-changing cultural phases of a given society, but it is also a church political matter. In my position as a respected retired long-time missionary in the Christian Reformed Church of Nigeria (CRC-N), my answer can easily cause conflict and tension in the community. The leaders can easily feel I let them down; the youth can easily use my reply to support a rebellion they may stage on the issue. So, truth, faithfulness and politics all in one go.  

I did not have much time to develop a completely reliable answer to the question. I have other things to do for the time being. So, I concocted the following answer, without being fully satisfied with it. I hope it is better than nothing or, as we say it in the Hausa language, ya fi babu.

So, here then my immediate off-the-top response to the question:

Hello Gani Yohanna

As to your question regarding polygamy, that's a big one.  Many years ago during the 

1970s, I was part of a CRCN committee that studied the issue. I suggest you check out

 the archives of your local CRCN congregation to see if they still have a copy of that 

report. If they don't, then check it out at the CRCN secretariat.  Unfortunately, I have no

copy here.  

If you are successful in obtaining a copy, I wonder if you could scan and send me a copy.

After you have read that report, ask me whatever question you have on the subject and I will try to help you.

However, off the top of my head without much time for deeper thought:

Abraham and many others in the OT practiced polygamy and none of them were condemned because of it, except kings like Solomon, who used polygamy for political purposes.  Other things in the OT were condemned as sin, but not polygamy.

Polygamy is the result of the general fall into sin during our early Genesis account. Human relationships deteriorated, including male/female relationships. However, God is realistic and seemed to have realized that something as deep as polygamy needs centuries to be corrected and so He allowed it even among His faithful ones.  He waited for further revelation to slowly erase it.  But do remember that already at the creation, we are told that both male and female were created in God's image equally. The fall broke that equality.

In the New Testament little is said about it, but the entire atmosphere is one of monogamy. It seems to be assumed by its writers.

You will find no Christian church in any part of the world that has not emerged out of Traditional Religion during the past 200 years that allows or practices polygamy. All of them agree that polygamy is not God's preferred way.

CRC-N is a new church that has emerged from Traditional Religion where polygamy was commonly practiced. The remnants of those male/female relationships are still there.  It will take many years for those relationships to be cleansed by the Gospel--a very slow process. As those relationships change, polygamy will slowly decrease, not by force or law, whether church or government, but by a change of heart, mind, values and relationships in general. The church should gently nurture that process without force but by its leaders to set examples of godly living in general and in godly male/female relationships.  These leaders and all godly Christians need to restore the equality that is inherent in both representing the image of God without distinction.

Is polygamy a sin? I think that in general cultural developments it is not necessarily a personal sin. It's the way people have been brought up. For members of churches newly emerged from Traditional Religion, where the Gospel is not yet fully understood, I would not consider it a personal sin either. However for Christians in maturing churches

who engage in it without caring about the Bible and historical church teaching, who disregard all that, I would consider it a sin, but the sin is not polygamy so much as distorted relationships that still have not been cleansed.  

Thank you for asking this important question.  Please greet Elder Ifraimu Gani and his uwargida for me. 

Post 132--Biblical Attitude towards Prostitution (1)

The Bible was written in a world where prostitution and other sexual practices were common. Prostitution is a very  ancient practice. It is not dubbed the oldest profession by some for nothing. By Genesis 38 it was already an established custom that served various purposes and vested interests. Female slaves were offering up their bodies to earn money for their masters. Free women entered it as profession, for so it was regarded. Brothels were not uncommon (I Kings 3:16).

Some decades ago, Amsterdam, the capital of my “old country,” was lauded for its progressive attitude towards prostitution, for they regulated it, derived taxes from it and sought to reduce the health problems that usually attend to its practice. Licenses were required from houses of prostitution with the government deriving revenue from it. This was sort of a win-win situation, sort of, probably better than the usual unregulated conditions. But this is nothing new, for similar arrangements have been discovered in the ancient world.

So, a whole culture had developed around the practice that is well circumscribed throughout the Old Testament (OT) especially. Prostitutes might wear special clothing, even perhaps a veil (Genesis 38:14ff; Proverbs 7:10). Of course, the price would vary depending on circumstances and social status.  We read of a loaf of bread (Proverbs 6:26); a kid (Genesis 38:17); a boy could be given away for a harlot’s wage (Joel 3:3; Matthew 4:3). Hebrew father was not to give his daughter to it (Lev 19:29).  Nor could priests marry a prostitute

So, ancient, firmly established and commonly practiced. If you want a fuller dose of it, I would refer you to volumes 1 and 2 of the International Standard Bible Enclopedia—1982 edition by Eerdmans—volume 1, pp. 815-817; volume 2, pp. 616-617.

Though when we think of prostitution, we usually think in terms of women selling their bodies to men, those we dub the “johns.”  But in the world of the OT it seems that male prostitution was as common as the female version. And besides the blatantly commercial version, there was a lot of religion involved in terms of cultic prostitution, including temples.  The cultic in this context does not refer to some extreme version but of mainstream or mainline practice. Prostitution was often closely tied to religion, the opposite of what we might expect. In fact, most of the OT passages dealing with the subject are tied to its cultic practice, though not exclusively. 

So, when the Bible speaks of prostitution, it is not talking about some exotic realm practiced in the shadows. No, much of it was in the open and official, both recognized and approved by the dominant cultures around Israel; in the centre of things instead of in the shadows, not on skidrow as in Vancouver’s Down Town East Side, but on Georgia and Robson Streets and in the churches lining West End streets.

But one of the first things you will notice when you begin searching for the topic in the Bible is its strongly negative attitude towards prostitution. It does not have a single good word to say about it. There are various reasons for that attitude; it’s not just a matter of “kill joy.”  In fact, the very opposite; it’s more a matter of “enable joy,” real joy.  It led—and still leads—to so many ugly problems in society that God wanted to protect His people from this “kill joy.”  Probably the first reason was of a religious nature, since religion is always at the heart of every society—the cult prostitution. "None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute (Deuteronomy 23:17).   The next verse: "You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.…”  “There were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD dispossessed before the sons of Israel (1 Kings 14:24). The cultic practice was an abomination to God because it was a common Pagan practice among the nations around Israel that constantly tempted the people to follow their example, have their “fun” and gradually transfer their loyalty from the God who delivered them from slavery in Egypt to the numerous idols of their neighbours. These were false “gods” that the OT frequently pokes fun of as powerless and of being made of mere wood or stone. These so-called “gods” deceived them, brought them false hope and distorted their values. They represented a culture rejected by God because of all its corruption, cruelties and oppressions.  It was hard for God to protect them when the people themselves were so open to and tempted by these cultural and religious travesties. And so God tried to put a stop to it altogether by simply condemning it in no uncertain language. 

There was another but related reason for the negative attitude towards prostitution. It can lead to social and cultural breakdown, even apart from the religious angle, but time is up and the word limit has been crossed. So, that will mean another post on the subject. See you in 133.   

Post 127—Human Plumbing and Culture

I hope you’re ready for another session on human plumbing and how we manage its product.  That management, as we will see today, is usually related to the dominant local culture.  In the last post, we saw how at least some Indians still manage it in a pretty primitive way. Now I don’t know enough about Indian culture to demonstrate my thesis firmly on the influence of culture on the matter, but I can at least make a guess. The Indian practice described in Post 126 must have been influenced by at least two factors.

One of them would be a general traditional ignorance of the impact of hygiene on health. First of all, the people would not be aware that defecating all over the place creates hygienic problems. Secondly, they would not be aware of the danger to health such unhygienic practice creates. Flies crawling all over the excrement and then carrying it with them wherever they go, including humans and food. Well, we know what happens from there on, but those people do not. They are blissfully ignorant of it and so continue to practice their unhealthy tradition. So, one cultural factor is general ignorance of hygiene.

The second cultural factor would be low level of technology combined with a poor economy. It takes a certain level technology and economy to devise better management of sewage. And that technology is pushed by growing awareness of the dangers of traditional practice. When people become aware of the danger, they will be motivated to take the bull by the horns and devise more healthy management practices. I have read various publications that claim the rapid increase in the health level of Westerners during the 19^th century was due more to the improvement in sewage systems than to improved medical science. And that came along with the general rise of technology—the Industrial Revolution, remember? 

Bring these two cultural developments together and you will soon have a management system that almost makes the sewage invisible so that the general population almost forgets about it. In any modern city like Vancouver, where I live, I am blissfully ignorant as to where mine goes, how it gets there and what happens to it. Never really think of it—until, of course, the system develops plumbing problems and then we call in a plumber with all her sophisticated equipment. “Her” did I say? Well, probably not. I have yet to meet a lady plumber!

But then there is an even deeper factor that can play a role—anthropology. That’s a fancy term referring to a culture’s view about human beings, who or what we are. I have lived for many years in a culture where the local chief was regarded a demi-god with all the men of the community in some way sharing that status. They could not imagine that gods would have such human problems as defecation and so they pretended the chief and all the man did not defecate. I don’t know how the chief handled that pretense, but for ordinary males this meant they would do their thing in the bush or forest. There were no toilets in such communities, for that would entail an unwanted admission. So everyone else, women and children, though no demi-gods, also had no choice but the bush, for no provisions for them were made either. Not only were there no provisions, but no one would speak about the subject. It was a taboo.

A breakthrough came. After decades of missionary work in the area, the myth began to break down. The young church was one of the first to build a toilet in the town. It was a simple structure of a grass matting surrounding a deep hole. But it was built only a few feet away from the well from which they drew the water needed for the church’s cooking events!  The people did not see the dangerous connection! 

Another breakthrough came, a negative one: a cholera plague that killed many people in just a few days. The local government medical officer quickly called a meeting of all the religious leaders of the two dominant religions, Christianity and Islam. He begged these leaders to preach on the need for hygiene, including toilets, to contain the plague. It so happens it was my turn to preach that Sunday.  

I decided to preach on an Old Testament text that instructed the people to bury their excrement in a hole outside the camp.

 Mark out an area outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourselves. Along with your weapons have a stick with you. After you relieve yourself, dig a hole with the stick and cover your excrement.God, your God, strolls through your camp; He’s present…. Keep your camp holy; don’t permit anything indecent or offensive in God’s eyes (The Message, Deuteronomy 23:12-13).

 I knew it was culturally inappropriate to speak about such matters. So I consulted a church elder and friend who was to translate my Hausa-language sermon into another language. He advised me I should go ahead and preach that sermon and promised to translate faithfully, even if it was culturally inappropriate. So I did. I preached a sentence or two and he would translate. So we would alternate. Suddenly, in the middle of the sermon, a very influential man stood up and yelled something in the local language which I did not understand. My translator brushed it off and told me to continue, but my heart was out of it. After the service, I was told that man yelled that the translator should not beat around the bush! Say it as I said it! However, my sermon was not lost on most, for they understood the Hausa language.

Thus, another humorous story, but also an indication how culture can influence such matters. Though comparatively free from that tradition, it was not enough for him to translate the message straight. However, people did begin to construct toilets in their compounds. A combination of disease, new awareness and the gospel brought about a radical change in the way the people saw themselves and that, in turn, led to a breakdown of that particular tradition—and did so for the good of the entire community. I never learned how this was solved for the chief himself or what effect this may have had on his alleged semi-divinity. I do know that the church did not openly challenge it ever but played along with it good naturedly, even though over time the chiefs were all Christian.