Monday, July 6, 2009

The Future of Vermont Polygamy

I may have to cease altogether, or temporarily. In order of probability that will be Temporarily (until further notice), Not at all, or Altogether. Here's why.

I am a Reformation Christian. A Conservative Presbyterian one to be exact. There are several Conservative Presbyterian denominations. I will not identify which one so on the off chance that someone tries to identify my church, it won't be painfully obvious which one it is that I attend. This is in keeping with a pattern outlined in scripture for disputes in which it stays private in it's initial stages, and hopefully never progresses beyond it's initial stages. Publicity is at odds with Godly practice at this particular point. Here is an outline of what my church wants from me when we meet.
"At a minimum, as evidence of such a change of heart on your part, and before we could consider welcoming you into membership, you would have to promise when we meet with you soon, in regard to this matter:

1.) To abandon your erroneous doctrine regarding polygyny and not attempt to persuade others about these views, either with those in this church or in other churches, including removing discussion and endorsement of polygyny on your personal website."
There were two other conditions that I do not consider important to mention. Suffice it to say that if I am disagreed with on the above as it is evident that I am, one would expect those that disagree with me, who are also concerned with the purity of the church, to take such a position.

If by some compromise or determination that results from the impending meeting I am told again to follow this condition, and accept the condition then Vermont Polygamy and the largest part of my other blog Modern Pharisee would go up in smoke. I'd probably cease publication of both in that case. If I blogged again it would be under the same site as Modern Pharisee no doubt, but with the deletion of my concerns on marriage and/or the repudiation of my stance on polygyny.

At this point I should assure every reader, friend, foe, casual acquaintance or anonymous, that I don't see it is likely that I will repudiate my position. It is somewhat more likely that I will accept the authority of the church and not speak about my views, this may involve some compromise. It is far more likely that I will continue in some way. I suppose it's possible that I could pull a Palin and walk away without any clear plan.

July 19Th is the slated date for this discussion, I'll let you know more at then, which may just be something along the lines of "discussions are ongoing."

God does not need me in particular to do anything. Help can come for his people, and correction, and doctrine, from anywhere. For all I know Governor Mark Sanford could take my place in this battle. I pursue what seems to be the most logical and best course, but God chose Gideon and whittled his force down to 300 men before using them for his purposes. God chose Jonah, and never was there a more reluctant prophet. God chose Paul, a killer of the followers of his Son, to spread the word to the world. Remember Abraham reached a point that he realized he could sacrifice Isaac, and God could of course, raise him from the dead. Daniel's three friends consented to be thrown to their deaths if God would not save them from the firey furnace. In short, God can do anything, and do it without me. In the twinkling of an eye.


  1. Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

  2. At some point, yes. I'm not sure what point it is that I should say that I have satisfied God's requirements of Matthew 18.

  3. There is absolutely nothing in Matt 18 about submitting to a lie.

    Church Discipline? Are you kidding? If you were a member I could see you taking this position, but you are not yet under thier authority. Such an argument does not apply. They are only seeking to silence you, not embrace you, because they cannot defend the lie.

    Why not have you go a step further, and publically endorse it? Which in essence is what will be understood by the opposition.

    Will you be silent when they endorse homosexual leadership? I think not.

    Jas 4:17 him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

  4. Matthew 23:

    Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

    1. I read this verse again yesterday, and thought of you.Have you considered what Jesus directly after this?

      Especially, in light of what he had just said:

      Mat 20:25 — Mat 20:26
      But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,

      After Jesus speaks of Moses seat, He tells us not to use Honorariums, like Rabbi, and Father.

      DO you still support this model for the modern church? Or is Jesus right when he says we are all brothers?

  5. I see the principle but there is no correlation. These people were already members. You are not. Why would you submit to an authority that does not honor the Word?

  6. Because from my point of view, I am a member. Besides, wanting to become one is not served well by rebellion.

  7. Rebellion? Against whom?

    Mat 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
    Mat 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
    Mat 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

    God gave you this message for a reason Mr. Hyper Calvinist. You do not get to choose to hide it. Then you really would be in rebellion, but not against man...

  8. The requirement is " abandon your erroneous doctrine regarding polygyny ".

    I think you should abandon all "erroneous doctrine". Have you already conceded to the monogamy-only position? Do you now affirm that all you have espoused for the years I have known you is "erroneous"?

    2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    Failing to use scripture to correct you, they have evoked "politics". How disappointing that you might even consider being silenced by those who are themselves in error.