BRANDING & DEFINITIONS

[Doc]

Dear friends,

My areas of expertise and experience are two-fold: pastoral ministry and broadcast media. What I have learned from these backgrounds tells me that labels and terms are extremely important. They carry with them so much more than just a mere definition.

For instance, when the words 'polygamy', or more specifically for our community, 'polygyny' are used, they automatically draw negative connotations. Now, you and I know those are the correct words, but today's world, and yes, the Church as well, view these terms as negative.

I personally prefer the terms "Biblical Marriage", "Patriarchal Marriage", or "Christian Plural Marriage", the latter of which I select above the others. The reason I prefer it is because it defines precisely our world-view (Christian) and what we believe (plural marriage).

However, I believe that we run into issues regarding the definition of 'marriage' itself. The problem of definition occurs on who you happen to ask. The State has one, the modern Church has one (which may or may not overlap), and we have another.

I was wondering if it might not be time to consider using another word for our definiton of marriage. Honestly, I have no idea what that(those) word(s) would be. I don't know if 'covenant relationship' is a good replacement, 'holy union', etc. We could get really deep and use the Hebrew or Greek words.

Branding is important. It distinguishes your unique concept or idea. We cannot allow the world, the state, or even the modern Church define the faith that we practice.

I would like to hear your thoughts and comments.

Thanks

Doc Burkhart
YIM docburkhart

 

[Mark C]

For instance, when the words 'polygamy', or more specifically for our community, 'polygyny' are used, they automatically draw negative connotations.

Perhaps, Doc, but I find a big difference between the two. Most people don't have a clue what the word "polygyny" means anyway (even Microsoft's spell checker want to flag it) and find that in on-line or one-on-one situations it usually results in a question, which gives me the opportunity to explain that "polygyny is the specific term which distinguishes the Biblically-permitted situation."

I don't mind the term "Patriarchal Christian" too much, although in many instances I like a term like "Patriarchal Messianic" or even "Hebrew roots" to distinguish what I think is the most important point - that Yeshua came not to change "one yod or tittle" of His Word "till ALL is fulfilled". And He did not change His "teaching and instruction (torah) on marriage* either.

So far as "marriage" is concerned, I generally take a hard line. Marriage is ordained by God, and not by the traditions of men, or by governments who would like to play god. The State has no authority, under the Constitution or from the Bible, to redefine it. The Founders explicitly enumerated powers delegated to the central government. It is the process of voluntarily accepting a "license", and placing one's house under Caesar, or 'the prince of this world', that is a real problem. The "modern Church" - having accepted Caesar's 501c(3) 'license' in almost every case, will find that it has already accepted its usurper creator's definition, having all to often long abandoned God's Word on the subject anyway.

I will frequently note in a discussion that Biblical Hebrew has NO word for "polygamy", either -- there is just "marriage" as God defined it.

Our language must clearly indicate that we understand the differences in Law and Authority, so that people are not "destroyed for lack of knowledge".



-----------------------------------
* And if this leads to the discussion of a related distinction between "put away" and "divorce" - so much the better.

 

[DaPastor]

Hello Brother,

I do not know if there is a satisfactory solution for this issue. Any term one uses today carries with it some baggage. I simply prefer to say that I believe in Biblical Marriage and leave it at that. I wish we could come up with a term that does not carry any baggage, but I do not know if it is possible. Perhaps a term like "Covenant Marriages" might spark some thinking in this area. We could say that we teach "Covenantal Marriages". Just a thought! What say you?

 

[shepherdgirl]

That was an interesting post & reply.

When my husband & I were getting to know each other, I remember commenting in jest that we could
move off to the middle east and marry without objection-since plural marriage seemed unthinkable in this country.
Or "If we only lived in during Bible times..." Such thoughts led me to study the scripture concerning multiple wives in marriage. We can live out scripture in this day, I know Torah still stands, as it will through generations to come.
I still have not come up with an answer for those who inquire of my marital status. It seems complicated... technically in the eyes of others I am not married, to God that's another topic all together.

Walking in His Grace
ShepherdGirl

 

[DaPastor]

That was an interesting post & reply.

When my husband & I were getting to know each other, I remember commenting in jest that we could
move off to the middle east and marry without objection-since plural marriage seemed unthinkable in this country.
Or "If we only lived in during Bible times..." Such thoughts led me to study the scripture concerning multiple wives in marriage. We can live out scripture in this day, I know Torah still stands, as it will through generations to come.
I still have not come up with an answer for those who inquire of my marital status. It seems complicated... technically in the eyes of others I am not married, to God that's another topic all together.

Walking in His Grace
ShepherdGirl

It is too bad we have to come up with a term that defines something that God has already defined - "marriage"! I have really been thinking about the term "covenantal marriage". Any thoughts?

 

[Mark C]

It is too bad we have to come up with a term that defines something that God has already defined - "marriage"! I have really been thinking about the term "covenantal marriage". Any thoughts?

Obviously, I agree on what God has already defined, Pastor.

I often use the brief term, "Covenant", to describe the same concept (capitalized, when in writing, to make the point :lol: ).

It then seems to follow naturally that a man may have more than one such Covenant, provided he honors the terms God laid down!

Blessings,

Mark

 

[Doc]

Regarding 'covenantal marriage': I like the term myself, except that several states in the South have already laid claim to the terminology(!) It differentiates from 'conventional' marriage in that couples are required to take pre-marriage counseling courses, marriage/divorce seminars, etc. I know for a fact it is used in Louisiana. They can

I also like what Mark said about the word 'Covenant' itself. It implies both a sense of contractual arrangement between two parties, plus has the added value of Biblical overtones.

A couple could say that they are 'In Covenant'. The man could also be 'In Covenant', that is, in agreement, with someone else as well.

The term 'Covenant' (cap C, Mark), could also imply a larger mutual agreement of more than two parties (husband+wife+wife).

Doc

 

[Chaplain]

Doc,
You and Mark both beat me to the punch. ( Been kinda busy ) The idea of calling the relationship my wife and I are offring her best friend "J" is in my book a Covenant Relationship. This is what we have called it all along and is how we stated it in the letter given to "J". The main Covenant is between myself and "J" with a supportive Covenant between my wife and "J ". This way we all would be in agreement. If asked by someone not in my family who "J" is...the answer is....... my Covenant partner......or to really throw a lot of people off......give this long answer.......she is my and my wifes God approved Biblically based Covenant partner......now that answer will really get to making people think :lol:

 

[Deanne]

The collective effort to define something can lead to a thesis rather than a simple statement; having said that I think that what we all agree on, and want to convey to others, is defined already in Ezekiel 16:7-14 and 60 by Yehovah Himself.

In this passage there are four specific elements necessary to define what we are called to live with our wives; shaba owlam beriyth kacah. Sworn everlasting covenant of covering. It is an oath without end, of a compact to provide and protect, made by a man to a woman.

God’s example to man, on how to be a husband, is the only definition that will stand against the relentless torrents of changing societies and morals of man. In provision and protection there is a further call to men to follow the example of Christ to His bride; provide, protect, and pastor.

To say that this is a tall order is the understatement of all time. Yet the man who walks in close proximity to his God will reflect more of Christ on others than the man who walks at a distance.

May our words mean something, may our focus always be upon He who never changes, and may our wives always be examples of this everlasting covenant of covering we have sworn to.

Ray

 

[nathan]

LOL! I can truly say there's a tactic I haven't heard suggested before - put on a dress! But how would we "wear the pants" in the family then? I'm afraid we'd be labeled: "psuedo-homo-matriarchal"?!?

Seriously, there's a lot of good points raised in this thread - none of us likes the stigma that "polygamy" has gotten. "polygyny" is just not known, and we really like the idea that it was just "marriage" in the bible. For the vast majority of of people, I just want to say I'm "married" to Julie, and say I'm "married" to Nita. If a situation calls for a greater explanation, then I prefer "Christian Plural Marriage" (a la our BiblicalFamilies.org google ad), to try to quickly differentiate from Mormon plural marriage - since they've somewhat tainted the latter two words.

"Biblical covenantal marriage" may be important to show we simply don't want the state to define, or be in, our marriages any more. And then explain, when needed, that Biblically, a man may enter more than one such covenant - and that needs no "-gamy" word to pigeonhole or justify it.