Matt Walsh and Andrew Tate clash over polygamy, with Tate defending multiple wives against Western legal rigging while Walsh champions monogamy as civilization's foundation. The hosts analyze biblical precedents like Abraham versus Lamech, noting early church fathers condemned polygamy as adultery, yet advise Muslim converts to keep existing wives despite disqualification from elderhood. Ultimately, the discussion frames egalitarianism as liberalism's linchpin, arguing that rejecting it is essential to restoring historic Christianity and defending a God-ordained hierarchical natural order. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Why Men Choose Monogamy00:12:58
Leave us a five star review on your favorite podcast platform.
I get it.
It's annoying.
Everybody asks, but I'm going to tell you why.
When you give us a positive review, what that does is it triggers the algorithm so that our podcast shows up on more people's news feeds.
You and I both know that this ministry is willing to talk about things that most ministries aren't.
We need this content for the glory of God to reach more people's ears.
Matt Walsh and Andrew Tate had a little spat on X recently over the last 24 to 36 hours over the topic of polygamy.
Matt Walsh, as a Western Catholic, was arguing for monogamy.
He's saying that monogamy is the marital structure that built Western civilization, and he's not wrong.
Andrew Tate, on the other hand, was arguing for having as many children as you can through as many wives as you can, or in his case, maybe it's not legally a wife, but some kind of Pseudo partnership, concubines of sorts, and this kind of became the talk of the town.
So today we want to do an episode talking about polygamy, and first we're going to address it from the Bible.
What does the Bible actually teach in the case of polygamy?
Is it ideal?
Is it a virtue?
Lower than that, is it, if it's a vice, a permissible vice, or is it inherently sinful?
Is it sinful in some cases or sinful in all cases?
These are the questions that we're going to answer in the first segment dealing with the scripture.
And then in the second, Segment of this show, we're also going to be addressing monogamy versus polygamy as it pertains to the Western and European tradition, looking at even pre Christian eras in Europe, even northern tribes, looking at the Germanics, looking at the Celts, and seeing what was going on here even before the gospel was brought to bear.
Were they mostly monogamous or were they mostly polygamist?
This is the kinds of questions.
That we'll do our best to answer in this particular episode, and then dealing with, of course, some of the specific tweets that we saw from both Andrew Tate and Matt Walsh.
Now, this episode is brought to you by our premier sponsors, Armored Republic and Reese Fund, as well as our Patreon members and our generous donors.
If you'd like to join our Patreon for extra, exclusive, ad free content, you can do so by going to patreon.com forward slash right response ministries.
And if you'd like to make a donation today, you can do so by going to rightresponseministries.com forward slash donate.
Let's tune in now.
All right, here we are.
Let's just, I think we should just lead off with some of the tweets that have gone viral at this point.
Do we start with Andrew Tate and then look at Matt Walsh and him responding or what?
Yeah, let's go ahead and do our best to steal man a position.
To steal man a position is the opposite of to make a straw man out of it.
So to straw man is to put up the weakest, most pathetic version of the argument and say, look how easy it is to knock over.
Whereas to steal man is to say, if I could make the case as best as possible, even if I don't agree with it, what would I argue?
And Tate's argument kind of goes along the line of here in the West, especially, you have, be it a court system, be it a culture of feminism, that the whole system is rigged against the man.
And so, men that undergo voluntarily marrying one woman, they kind of, in some ways, his argument would be, well, they kind of subject themselves to you could have your money taken.
Your wife also could go crazy.
She could say, I'm going to take your son and I'm going to turn him into a girl, and you're never going to see him again.
And so, he sees those different things and he says, hey, men, you should have, you know, don't put all your eggs in one basket.
As many women as would be willing to as possible, and as many children through them.
And listen to what he says in responding to Matt, because Matt is kind of the illustration of the opposite, right?
Andrew Tate claims to have 40 children with nine different women.
Matt Walsh has, I think, six kids with one woman, which is good for Matt.
Praise God.
But listen to how he kind of responds to Matt as Matt's making the point that, like, hey, marriage is good, all of these different things.
He says this He says, hey, Matt, agreed on this point.
Any man with a brain, this is why, any man with a brain doesn't hand over the keys to his castle.
So the wealth that he's built, his job, his properties, everything he's accrued.
Don't hand over the keys to his castle to a misandric legal system that is a feminine coded legal system and over emotional, unchecked females.
The world has changed, Matt.
Women are a fraction of what they were.
Telling men to just get married and be loyal gets men wrecked.
The only way they hold the relationship together is to give up any ounce of masculinity.
Living hell.
The smartest move on the chessboard, this is his claim.
So, all of that, and I even touched on it too, it's true about the court systems.
The smartest move, Tate says, on the chessboard for a man now is to get rich.
And have as many children as he wants from as many women as he wants and take care of them all.
Second world, avoid first world courts.
Own your empire and women will respect you in return for provision.
And he follows up and says, You have four sons and I have, I think it's something like 20 or 30.
Like on paper, Matt is just not going to have 20 sons.
And if he does, someone please conduct a wellness check on his poor wife.
Right.
So that's kind of the steel man of the argument.
He's saying, Hey, and it is true.
And I personally know these men.
And you can't just say, Well, you know, just be a good man and be loyal.
These are real cases.
Where men have, I remember one good brother, his wife was holding off from filing divorce papers until the 10 year mark because at the 10 year mark, she was entitled to more of his wealth.
She was going for his kids to take custody of them.
She was going for his money, and not just his money, but as much money as she could get while she was sleeping with another man.
And the court system, she walked in, she got everything she wanted here in Texas two years ago.
Like that legitimately happens.
He's a good, faithful man, leading the family, working hard, and she took him for everything that he's worth.
Now, there's not a single boilerplate solution to that.
That's not really the topic of what we're saying today.
But we have to be honest that there is a point that the men were saying, I don't know about this marriage thing.
Like that kind of sounds like I'm setting myself up for a lot of risk.
That risk is real, even though Tate's point is wrong.
Well, just have as many children with as many women as possible.
No, that's not the right response either.
But the problem he points out, I really think, is a real one.
Yeah.
Anything to add?
What do you think?
No.
Yeah, I think that's, you know, you can certainly understand why.
When Andrew Tate talks about this, it's where the appeal is coming from.
Like, I do understand, like, in this common, you know, in this context, like, men are, I mean, you have a large swath of men who I think have been alienated by women for one reason or another.
And as a consequence, I think they've sort of turned away from like a biblical ideal of marriage.
I'll put it that way.
And, you know, and what Tate's saying about relationships and how, you know, in the modern context, women, you know, in a way, abuse men and use men, so on and so forth.
Like, I think it's appealing to say, Hey, actually, your instincts that you're being told to sort of suppress in this like Western sort of schema are actually appropriate.
And that's where Andrew Tate's appeal is coming from.
I think it's partly on like the physical side of things, like, hey, exercise, hustle, try to get as much money as you can.
But I think on the relationship side as well, how he talks about, hey, ballers, kings, so on and so forth, they get a lot of women.
I think that just appeals to men.
I think Matt Walsh is coming with more of the sort of historical, biblical view of marriage and trying to articulate that sort of in this back and forth that we're looking at.
And yeah, we see it come to a clash.
I think it's appropriate, Wes, to sort of steel man some of the good points that Tate's making, like you've done, but also see why it's so commonly held in the Christian sort of schema, what Matt Walsh will say.
Yeah.
Yep.
Let's play Matt's video.
All the benefits for the man that traditionally are baked into the equation of marriage according to God's design have been stripped away with our modern feminist tradition that we now have here in the West.
So you think of what's the incentive for a man to get married?
Part of it is legacy, lineage, that he would have posterity that would carry on his name.
I mean, today you have hyphenated last names, you know, often.
The wife not even taking the last name of the husband.
You also have all these women on birth control, continuing to be on birth control, even entering into marriage.
So they're not actually producing offspring.
They're not actually going to provide a child, an heir for that man.
The other incentive from a biblical perspective is that sex, the only proper context within Christian thinking, Christian ethics, is within marriage between one man and one woman.
And There are prevalent cases of women who refuse to sleep with their husbands.
And so there's no moral obligation in the minds of many women today.
The idea of conjugal rights, I mean, you think of even some of our laws as it pertains to incarceration.
Why are there conjugal rights?
It's like you're a criminal, you broke the law, you could be a murderer.
You murdered someone, I'm sorry, you don't get to have sex with your wife.
And yet, you know, on the books, we have had this system of conjugal rights, even for criminals, because what we're saying is that it's not just the criminal being able to receive that sexual intimacy, but he has an obligation to fulfill that for his wife, for his spouse.
And so she has a right to it.
And it's actually outlined as a right.
And this is what we see in Scripture.
I believe it's 1 Corinthians chapter 7, where the Apostle Paul says, Do not deprive one another unless by mutual consent, and even then, only for a time.
So that you may devote yourselves to prayer, but then be rejoined together, for there is much temptation in the world.
And so, even the Apostle Paul, who, as far as we know, remained single, he's talking about married couples and saying, if you're married, you should be having sex.
And, you know, like he doesn't, you know, he's not a legalist about it.
He's not putting, you know, a time stamp, you know, like you have to set alarms on your phone, you know, but he's saying, you know, the overarching.
At least, you know, the concept is that sex would be somewhat frequent, it would be somewhat regular.
And but he binds it in language of duty, not merely recreation or pleasure.
You should do this because it's fun.
It's like, no, you the husband has a duty to his wife, and the wife has a duty to her husband.
But in our feminist society, where there's you know, there's no sense of that that remains, a woman can marry a man, not sleep with him, not bear children for him.
If she does bear children, or at least conceive children, she can murder his children with impunity.
A wife, think about that.
Even in marriage, not just out of wedlock, but even in marriage, your wife, who you're legally married to, can take your unborn child to a hitman and pay him your money that you've earned and have that child murdered, your child.
And there's not a dang thing that you can do about it legally.
You cannot stop her.
And if you tried by force to stop her, you would go to jail.
And your child would still be murdered in the womb because she's got a nine month window to carry it out, ample provision and time.
So you get married, and there's no guarantee.
It's like, well, I want to get married because I'd like to be able to have sexual intimacy.
There's no guarantee that she'll sleep with you.
Well, I'd like to have a son.
There's no guarantee that she'll give you children.
Well, you know, but maybe she'll get pregnant.
There's no guarantee that she'll continue to keep the pregnancy and won't murder your child with legal impunity.
And She can go and take all of your stuff.
And she will win.
She will.
The entire court system is geared towards her.
The Court System's Bias00:15:33
So, the moment that you get married, you're entering into a scenario where, especially for worldly men who aren't Christian, you're looking at less sex, not more, less sex, if any sex at all.
You're looking at a hyphenated last name.
You're looking at no posterity, maybe some murdered posterity.
And probably her ending up taking, you know, 50% of the company that you started.
When you finally, or she finally, opts out.
Yeah.
And the house.
So Andrew Tate is right in terms of the diagnosis.
And that's where the red pill has always been right, as long as they've been around.
They're absolutely right.
And a lot of Christians don't, still just don't quite get it.
A lot of pastors, I don't think they quite understand how high the stakes really are.
And how incredibly corrupt and how rigged the deck is against the husband.
So I'm sympathetic in that regard.
But at the same time, what Andrew Tate is arguing for, not only is it not the Christian position, but it's also not the Western position, which makes sense when you think of Andrew Tate and the fact that, you know, when he finally realized, okay, you know, like I need to, I can't just remain undeclared when it comes to my faith, religion.
I need to kind of, You know, make up my mind here.
And he realized, you know, like, hey, if I'm going to be based and right wing, you know, whatever that is for Andrew Tate, there's not really a category of I'm based and right wing and I'm agnostic.
Oh, so you're a lib.
Right.
I'm based and right wing, but I'm an atheist.
You've never met someone like me before.
Yeah, yeah, we have.
It's called James Lindsay, and you're actually a leftist.
There is no right wing category that's not profoundly religious.
Right.
There's not.
Not really.
And so.
I mean, Dave Rubin is a very moral.
Wait, his gang.
Yeah.
Exactly.
So, what guys realize as they start going down, take the red pill, go down the red pill rabbit hole, is they realize, okay, I've got to be religious.
I've got to pick one.
And so, naturally, which religion does Andrew Tate pick?
Well, he picks Islam, not Christianity, but Islam.
Islam is not Western.
Islam is not American, it's not European.
And so, he picks a religion that allows for polygamy.
He picks for a religion that allows for.
Multiple wives and all these, you know, allows for harems and allows for.
And so for me to see, like, okay, here's, you know, an allegedly, you know, Islamic guy and he's going to argue for, you know, some version of polygamy makes total sense.
But I think it's, you know, it's good and we're going to do that now.
But to argue, you know, the biblical impetus against what Andrew Tate is positing, but then also to show that this is not, it's not.
It's not American.
It's not European.
It's not just that it's not Christian.
It's not Western.
This is not how Western society was built.
You want to go to societies that embrace polygamy?
Great.
Then enjoy living in a hut.
But if you want cathedrals and you want airfare and you want smartphones and cell towers, if you want civilization, then you're looking at.
Christian nations, and you're looking at monogamous nations.
You're not looking at nations with harems.
The nation that allows you to have multiple wives is also the nation where you live in a grass hut.
So enjoy your hut.
But to take all the benefits of Western society while mocking some of the bedrock principles that built Western society is disingenuous at best and hypocritical more likely.
Let's play Matt's clip, kind of his rebuttal, too.
And we've pointed out, obviously, we agree with Matt much more on this, but he does still kind of miss the mark a little bit.
The setup which Andrew Tate describes and promotes, where men have children by many different women, has lots of historical precedent.
It does.
This is the way that primitive societies have operated for thousands of years.
And today, this strategy, if we can call it that, is very popular in certain communities in this country.
And you can always spot those communities because they're the ones that are the most dysfunctional, the filthiest, most destitute, and Crime ridden places in the country.
Show me the murder rate and the average yearly income in any neighborhood, and I will tell you whether most of the children in that neighborhood have a father in the home or not.
And I will never be wrong.
Andrew Tate talks about this kind of lifestyle as though it's natural.
In a post on Sunday, he made that claim explicitly.
He said, Monogamy isn't natural for men.
Men are men.
This is how they'll always be.
And he's right in a certain way it is natural.
It's natural in the sense that it appeals to our most base and uncivilized impulses.
Another word might be primitive.
An even better word would be animalistic, which is why it's so commonly found in the animal kingdom.
Reptiles and fish behave this way.
You're not going to find a monogamous lizard or shark.
Monkeys are almost always non monogamous.
Go down the list of animal species, and they almost all approach family formation the way that Andrew Tate prescribes.
But the problem is that we are not monkeys or lizards or sharks.
We are human beings.
And my controversial contention is that we should act like it.
Is monogamy natural?
Even better, it's supernatural.
Man and wife become one at the altar.
They are bound together by the vow they made before God.
This is above our base instincts.
And so is composing a symphony or sculpting the statue of David out of a massive hunk of marble.
These things are achieved, just like any great thing is achieved, by rejecting temptation, subordinating our base desires, embracing some measure of hardship for the sake of something far greater than whatever momentary pleasure we can experience by giving in to them.
And there is nothing in this world more manly, more masculine than that.
In fact, I would say this is the very definition of masculinity.
Can you do the harder thing for the sake of the greater good?
If you're going to impart one thing to your sons and your daughters as a father, it should be this teaching them how to do the harder thing for the greater good.
And if you can't or if you won't, Then you aren't manly.
And no matter how much money you have or how much you can bench press, it doesn't matter.
Now, Tate says that men will be men.
And yes, that's true, but will they be good men?
Will they be men of virtue and fidelity and discipline?
They can be if they pursue the higher thing.
In a similar way, I might say that many men will father children.
That's easy to do.
But will they be fathers?
They have children.
Will they raise them?
That's the hard part.
I keep talking about hardship and difficulty, rightly so, but I don't want to make it sound like being a faithful husband and father is nothing but misery and drudgery, and all you can do is just grit your teeth and bear it.
That's not the case.
I love being married, I love being a dad.
It's a lot of fun much of the time, it's a source of great joy.
That's what happens when you simply let go of your childish need to put your own immediate gratification before anything and everything all the time.
You discover an ability to do the harder thing and actually enjoy it.
The way that guys like Tate describe marriage makes it seem like, you know, we're living in entirely different universes, and perhaps we are.
Because he describes marriage like it's a labor camp.
A man is imprisoned by his controlling, ungrateful, promiscuous wife who runs out to cheat on him as soon as he leaves for work in the morning.
He makes it seem, or outright claims, that it's essentially impossible for a man to find a good, faithful woman who will bear his children, stay true to her vows, and respect and love him until he dies.
But how could it be impossible?
I am currently in such an arrangement.
I know many men in the same boat.
If you don't know any truly happy and faithful marriages, then I would suggest that the problem isn't with marriage, it's that you are surrounding yourself with awful people.
Now, finally, back to the subject of raising boys.
Yeah, we agree with a lot of that.
I agree with a lot of that.
I think.
There was a lot of criticisms, I think, specifically aimed at Tate that were more relevant than I think his defense of marriage specifically.
Doing the harder thing for the greater good, I thought was great.
Yeah, I agree with that.
Yeah.
At the end, there, though, is when he kind of starts to, like, you know, he kind of almost kind of made it like, I'm in a good marriage.
My wife is kind and faithful.
And therefore, it seems like he was implying that women like Matt's own wife are prevalent and that they grow on trees.
Yeah.
And I'm like, where do you.
If you know where, please tell the young man out here looking for a wife.
I wonder when Matt, I assume he has to have been married for at least a decade.
I can look it up.
Yeah.
Wes will look it up.
I'm going to guess.
I think he got married 15 years ago.
Plus, that sounds about right.
That's what I'm going to guess.
But go ahead.
Well, I was just going to say, like, also, one thing as you're watching this clip becomes evident is that what Matt Walsh is criticizing about Andrew Tate's sort of version, if you will, of polygamy is something that actually outright should just be condemned.
Like, because what he's saying is true.
You think about Islam.
I think Aquinas specifically did a study of Islam and ref.
And essentially described it as the pursuance of lust.
Like that is what that is the embodiment of that faith.
Right.
It's just sex, money, power.
Precisely.
It's just permissive.
And so, in the way that Matt Walsh is criticizing Andrew Tate and how he's talking about dating and marriage and polygamy, that is the right criticism to make.
Because that, I mean, we were talking about before the episode, like for 99% of men who are liking Andrew Tate's tweet here and espousing this kind of view, like, It is a selfish, lustful motivation.
And we should just, as we, the point I'm trying to make here is we should distinguish the criticisms we're leveraging at Tate and his view of polygamy from the very real presence of polygamy in scripture that we're forced to wrestle with as Christians and that, you know, church fathers, so on and so forth, and church history have wrestled with.
It's just different, you know, it's just a different context, different reasons, so on and so forth.
So, yeah.
He was married in 2011.
So he was 25 years old at the time, about 14 years ago.
And that probably was a time where it was easier to find.
Sideguess 15.
A good woman.
And we've talked about this before.
A lot of women marry for potential in men.
So they see a man that is working hard, but he's not there yet.
He's disciplined, but he can grow in it.
And they say, I want to come along for that journey.
But men, at some level, they're marrying for youth, like the ability to bear children.
But there's also an element of a past in there.
A past can't be erased.
And there's men that would say no to some women because of the lifestyle, specifically a promiscuous lifestyle that they've lived.
And my point is that it's actually possible in a given nation, for example, of all the women of marriageable age, That more women would have a past that would disincline them towards marriage, more, it could be more or less.
So, you could have a time like ours in which the vast majority of women, for one reason or another, are generally ineligible for marriage, whether it be by their temperament, whether it be by their views, being feminist.
There can be a Christian man looking to date, and proportionally, there'd be more eligible Christian women that he could date 50 years ago than today.
It's not a fixed number that there will always be a fixed number of Christian women, and all of those Christian women would be good women that you should be happy to marry.
And I would definitely say right now, it would seem there is a dearth of good Christian women to find and to marry that want to be mothers, that want to be good stay at home wives, that want to respect and submit to their husbands.
That wasn't always the case 20, 30, 40 years ago, but that most certainly probably is the case now.
And telling people, well, hey, I did it when it was easy, like that's great, but that doesn't help a lot of men who are saying it is rough out here.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Finding a good woman is pretty difficult.
I'm always, I've quoted it before, people get mad at me.
I understand that there are.
There's some other context to this in the higher interpretive level and how it pertains to more spiritual things.
But nonetheless, you still have in the book of Ecclesiastes, he says, When I was searching, but still not yet finding, I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.
Classic.
I feel like that's kind of like these days, that could probably, for the single man, be your life verse.
Maybe a little bit discouraging.
Maybe pick a different verse that's a little bit more hopeful.
But Yeah.
Let's transition to the biblical portion of this.
So, the biblical arguments, and that was even some of the criticism that Matt Walsh got.
Matt, you should be making these arguments for monogamy based on scripture.
And I couldn't help but think the way he was kind of describing polygamy, to your point, Antonio, we have to be honest about this.
You will not win if you're not honest with people that oppose you.
So, if you're arguing for monogamy, which we are, you do need to be honest about what the Bible says, whether it be Abraham, whether it be Esau, whether it be David, whether it be Solomon, Joash, later on in the book of Kings.
There were a number of biblical patriarchs who had multiple wives.
Abraham was two.
I think Esau was two.
Is it Isaac as well?
He has four, I believe.
Yeah.
So Isaac has four.
David has, it seems, about eight.
Solomon, just put them all to shape.
I think Jacob has four because he marries Rachel, Leah first, and then Rachel.
And then each of them have a servant that married Jacob.
So, yep.
Jacob has four.
I think Isaac is two.
Yep.
So you have a number of cases in scripture.
And if we're perfectly honest, we don't see anything necessarily in the text.
Now, the first, Man who's married to two women, Lamech, this would be in Genesis chapter four, he is condemned.
He's known as a violent man.
It records there that he's married to two women and he boasts about being to a violent man who just slighted him ever so slightly.
And he says, All right, if Cain was avenged, let me tell you how much I'm going to do to someone who offends him.
And the difference is Cain, in the case of Cain, and Cain was, you know, he was no saint, but in the case of Cain, it's God exacting this vengeance sevenfold, right?
I'll put my mark on you because Cain is like, You know, okay, you're going to allow me to live after killing my brother Abel.
Biblical Narratives on Polygamy00:13:29
You know, and I'm going to be a wanderer and I'm being banished, but people are going to find me and kill me, you know.
And God makes him this promise and says, I'll put my mark on you so that if anybody finds you and tries to lay a hand on you, tries to harm you or kill you, I will exact vengeance on them sevenfold.
Whereas Lamech is saying, you know, if Cain's vengeance was sevenfold, mine will be 77fold.
So he's saying, you know, it'll be exponentially more.
And he's also saying, I'm going to exact that kind of vengeance.
And, you know, and so, and he's talking about that in the context of.
Like, presumably, what we can tell implicitly is like a young boy who doesn't commit a crime or anything, but just slights him, offends him.
And so he's like, I'm going to go and absolutely destroy and murder and kill this young boy.
So that's the wickedness of Lamech.
It's not, he was wicked because he had two wives.
No, it's wicked because he's wicked.
But then you do have to grapple with the fact that, you know, the most wicked guy so far in the biblical narrative, other than Cain, and arguably from what you can tell from the text, he's.
He's, you know, he's 11 times more wicked than Cain.
So, thus far in the biblical narrative from Genesis chapter one, it's the most wicked guy in scripture we've seen thus far.
He also happens to be descriptively the first guy in scripture who has more than one wife.
Yep.
So, not a great, you know.
And Abraham's marriage to Hagar, that does not go well either.
Sarah gets jealous.
She kicks her out.
She nearly dies in the desert.
Same thing with Jacob.
There's strife and everything.
Probably the best you could do would be.
David.
So, David did not have 800 wives like Solomon, who, for the record, took him and led his heart away from God later on in his life, which was the specific warning about kings multiplying wives.
But you have David, who had about eight wives, and it's likely some other concubines.
And you could make the argument with Bathsheba, and we're just trying to kind of go through the biblical narrative to say what the Bible says about this.
And you could say with Bathsheba, well, see right there, the fault was with Bathsheba.
But if we're being technical, the fault was that he slept with the wife of another man.
So, Bathsheba was Uriah's wife.
Because David had other wives.
Exactly.
And it was permissible for David at that time.
I thought there was an interesting comment here from Foxhound in the chat.
He said, and he's right, when we're making biblical moral arguments, descriptive texts, they're not nothing, but they are descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Prescriptive meaning that the Bible's actually explicitly commanding something.
Descriptive is it's just describing a picture of something, right?
Like what you just referenced with David and Bathsheba, right?
That's descriptive.
What's going on?
Well, David sleeps with Bathsheba, another man's wife, and then sends her husband, Uriah, to the front lines and has.
Joab and everybody retreat from him so that essentially, you know, effectively he's murdered.
So you'd read that, and that's in the Bible, but it's a descriptive text and it's not prescribing saying.
And so this is what you do to live a good and godly life.
You need to find somebody who's a close friend.
Uriah was one of the 30 mighty men.
He wasn't just a random guy in Israel, he was one of David's friends.
You need to find a close friend, top 30 friend list, and you need to sleep with his wife, you know, and make sure that he, you know, set the stage for him to die in some tragic accident.
So that's a descriptive text, not prescriptive.
So, too, with Lamech.
Going back to that real quick, Foxtown just brought up you know, you can argue that if you wanted to play the devil's advocate, you can argue in another one.
You can say, well, the first monogamous marriage in the Bible led towards the fall of the entire human race, Adam and Eve.
I don't want that to happen again.
Probably should cut out all that monogamy.
Should just be celibate.
Right.
You know, so that is a fair point.
So, Lamech, I think there's something there.
But if that's the whole foundation of the argument, then no, that's not strong enough.
Yeah, but if we talk about, like, I, you know, you think about arguments for monogamy against polygamy, I wouldn't necessarily go to Lamech.
I think there's a couple other things.
And as you read the church fathers, I think there's two sort of primary ways that monogamy as not only the ideal, but that all other forms of marriage would be sinful polygamy, bigamy.
I think the best arguments are going to be Christological.
And so this is the way that Christ and the church mirror.
A husband and a bride, and that being sort of a view of marriage, then you have like, and that sort of aligns with Genesis 2 24, that a husband should leave his parents and cling to one wife, hold fast to one wife.
So you have that sort of Christological view, biblically speaking.
And then I think the natural law arguments are also something that comes out in sort of the anti Nicene church fathers, which is to say that polygamy introduces disorder.
It's a disordered sort of version of the family.
So you think about like Andrew Tate, he's got 40 kids and nine wives.
Can he possibly be a biblical father to all 40 of those children?
Can he sort of do his duty to sort of raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord, so on and so forth, as parents are commanded, as fathers are commanded?
And so you have that sort of.
That one's tough because you think of like Adam and Eve, you know, Adam lived, you know, over 900 years.
Like Adam probably had, he probably had over 100 kids easily.
And so, like, so I do understand, I like the Christological argument, I like that a lot.
I was going to say, what I would add is just an argument from creation itself.
So, like when Jesus makes his argument against divorce, he says, you know, well, Moses told you that if you want to divorce your wife, you must offer her a certificate of divorce.
But I tell you, and then what he appeals to, similar to the Apostle Paul when he's arguing for male headship in 1 Timothy chapter 2, Jesus says, but I tell you, from the beginning, it was not so.
And I think that that is a strong argument to just to say from the beginning, the first marriage is one man and one woman.
God could have, I mean, Adam has a few more ribs, right?
Like, I'm not a biologist, but I'm pretty sure we have more than one rib in our body.
Like, I mean, seriously, God could have taken one from each rib cage and here's two wives.
Yeah.
But he doesn't.
And I do think that that's a more significant argument.
Yeah.
And I think that argument from creation is more.
Is actually upstream from the natural law argument because you would struggle to find biblical prohibitions against polygamy.
Like, really, the only approach you can take is say, how did God create man in the garden?
Perfect, holy, righteous.
And then what flows from that naturally?
And then, and so, yeah, you're totally right.
I think the appeal to creation, the appeal to natural law.
Now, natural law, though, like, technically, for example, you think of the inverse, which would be one woman with multiple men.
That is, it's literally baked into the fabric of the universe.
The psychological effect, this is for women as it relates to biology and pair bonding.
And maybe someday we do have to do it.
We'll do a whole episode on the effects of it.
But a woman that sleeps with multiple men will have all sorts of downstream health issues, psychological, mental health issues, her likelihood of divorce.
So if you're talking about a woman that slept with multiple men prior to marriage, it increases her likeliness of divorce.
But you don't actually see that with men.
Men who would have multiple partners, other women, they don't experience that at all.
If one woman, put it this way, Solomon, had 800 some.
Wives and concubines combined.
If one woman had, heaven forbid, 800 male partners in her lifetime, she would be psychologically destroyed.
Her body would literally not survive it.
And God has made the fabric of the universe that.
So I would say at some level in natural law, we don't see an equivalence in that.
No.
You have men that would, as the head of the home, then potentially, like even Moses, the argument could be made.
There's Zipporah and then there's a Kushite woman potentially being two separate individuals.
That's actually, and we'll make this point kind of in the second one.
That is actually probably, and even Rush Dooney makes this point, a valid real family.
But one woman with multiple men, with somehow the woman serving as the head of it, the federal representative, the matriarch, the matriarch, that's impossible.
So I agree with you like natural, just even having multiple women in the same household, Rush Dooney has examples.
Yeah, it's not great.
They get jealous, just like we see in the Bible.
But it is still possible.
But natural law for sure tells us that the inverse is impossible.
Yeah, there's gradations against nature.
Yeah, for sure.
Yeah, exactly.
We've talked about that before.
Actually, ironically, in the context of an episode about Andrew Tate, sinning in the right direction, everybody lost their mind.
Obviously, the point that I was making, and I literally said it, if you just panned out and didn't clip me out of context all the time, is there are sins which are in accordance with nature, but still sins.
And then there are sins which go against nature.
So, like Romans chapter one, that's one of the things that Paul argues about homosexuality.
It says that men exchanged natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust.
For one another.
So a man who's promiscuous is sinning, but he's sinning in a way that does accord with nature.
It doesn't accord with the law of God, but it does accord with nature.
So, it's still sin, and it's not absolving that and saying that it's not a sin.
But a man who's promiscuous is not sinning at the same degree, the same level as a man who's sleeping with another man.
Not all sin, contrary to popular opinion, is equal.
All sin, apart from repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, is equal in its ultimate eternal effects that it will separate you from the love and intimacy of the triune God forever in hell.
So, all sin is equal in that aspect, but not all sin is equal.
Both in the sight of God, but then also certainly in its temporal earthly consequences and effects.
And we've talked about that multiple times.
So there are sins which are absolutely immoral.
They're sins, but accord with nature.
And then there are sins that go against nature.
And those sins which betray nature and contradict nature are greater sins with greater temporal effects, and they are more abominable in the sight of God.
God hates all sin.
But he goes to great lengths in multiple texts throughout the Proverbs, for instance, to say God doesn't like any sin, but six, no, seven are detestable to him or abominations to him.
So, even from God's purview, some sins are greater than others.
And certainly from a human viewpoint in temporal effects, some sins are greater than others.
But so, all that being said, back to a woman having multiple husbands.
One of the reasons that that doesn't work is because of the principle of male headship, which is a part of the natural order.
In the case of a man who has multiple wives, there is still one head.
In the case of a woman who has multiple husbands, she cannot.
It's not just, oh, she won't be a good head.
She's not the head.
She cannot be the head.
She's not the head of that household.
And so, by virtue of one woman having multiple husbands, then that means if she has three husbands, There are three heads, and anything with more than one head is a monster, as the old adage goes.
And so now you don't just have, you know, like three wives who are struggling with strife and jealousy, but now you have three men who are vying against one another, competing one another for the authority of that household and the children and its direction and its, you know, economic production and all these.
So you never see that.
And I think that's worth noting.
You never see that in the Bible.
So we'll talk about here in a moment, a little bit later.
None of us, just we'll go ahead and, as a disclaimer, we feel comfortable saying this polygamy is not esteemed in Scripture, it's not dignified in Scripture, and it's not the ideal.
Now, whether or not polygamy is a sin, we're going to address that here in a moment.
If there is permissibility, not ideal, But at least a moral permissibility in some cases, and we'll talk about that in a moment for polygamy.
What we can all agree on is there's not even the permissibility.
There's not even a conceivable, not one conceivable hypothetical scenario where polygamy would even be permissible in the case of it being one wife with multiple husbands because it goes against nature.
Nor would it be, I think, permissible to make the argument that polygamy is ever the ideal, too.
So, you can't make women with multiple men.
You can't even say, is there a way to make that even permissible?
That's what God kind of intended from the beginning.
None of that.
We're going to discuss the arguments, be it from church history, be it from nature.
What are some possible scenarios where God's word maybe has some wider boundaries?
Yep.
So let's go to our first commercial break and we will be right back.
God's Original Intent for Marriage00:03:18
The danger of centralized power is often represented by the word king.
As Americans, we hate the word king.
Civilian ownership of body armor is about helping people to have increased power to resist tyrants and criminals.
And so, Armored Republic is about helping you to preserve your God given rights to the honor of the Lord Jesus Christ because he is the king of kings and he governs kings and he will judge them.
This is Armored Republic.
And in a republic, there is no king but Christ.
We are free craftsmen, and we are honored to be your armor-spread choice.
Running your business with purpose means looking beyond last month's numbers to next year's vision.
Kaylee Smith offers CFO level strategy scaled just for small businesses.
At Mid State Accounting, she takes care of your compliance, bookkeeping, and tax returns while providing holistic advisory and fractional CFO services to help you steward your resources with a distinctly Christian perspective.
Ready to align your finances with your future?
Then call Kaylee Smith at 573 889 7278 for a free, no obligation consultation.
Mention the Right Response podcast to get 10% off your first three months.
Prefer to explore online?
Then you can visit midstateaccounting.net to learn more or schedule a call.
Again, that's midstateaccounting.net.
With Midstate Accounting, you'll plan for tomorrow while operating in faith today.
So, call Kaylee Smith at 573 889 7278.
Again, that's 573 889 7278.
Heaven's Harvest takes pride in providing you with the best freeze dried emergency survival food kits on the market.
Their kits stand out because they prioritize serving sizes and calories that will sustain you for the long haul.
No gimmicks, no fillers.
Just a diverse array of nutritious options that will pleasantly surprise you.
But they're more than just emergency food, they're advocates for sustainable preparedness.
Their heirloom seed kits include heirloom, non GMO, non hybrid, open pollinated seeds, ensuring that your garden produces the same quality and variety year after year.
Packaged in high grade mylar foil, their seeds have a 10 year shelf life.
So, get 10% off your Heaven's Harvest order by using our special discount code RRM at checkout or by clicking the link in the description below.
Made in the USA and free shipping on orders above $99 for the US only.
Is Polygamy Always Sin00:14:06
So, welcome back.
We're going to ask the question Is polygamy always, in every case, a sin?
And I want to lay this and I'll toss it over to Antonio.
I like what the Westminster, I think it's a shorter catechism, what it defines.
Sin as because sin is not just, it's not arbitrary.
It's not left up to, well, this felt like a sin, or I would even say internal states.
Like we have to be careful just attributing sin to, well, I didn't feel this in worship, or maybe I was distracted.
Sin, very specifically in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, is any want of conformity to or transgression of the law of God.
Sin is the word itself in Greek to miss the mark.
It's want of, so the lack of conformity, so a negative sense, I didn't do what was required by the law of God.
Or transgression of in its positive connotation, actively transgressed, actively disobeyed, and very specifically, the law of God.
And we say God's law, the Ten Commandments, is the best encapsulation of it.
Both nature and God's word teach us the law of God, what to do and what not to do.
And for a theonomist, for example, Levitical law is then expounded.
So, expounding upon what it means to not murder, what it means to not steal, here's what that looks like in the Commonwealth, here's what that looks like for the state to step in and say, hey, this counts as murder, hey, this counts as theft.
So, sin, any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God.
We're asking in every single case, anywhere, has polygamy always counted as that?
Yeah.
And, you know, I think you think about church history.
I think the predominant view on marriage is that polygamy is sin.
And we'll look at some quotes from some church fathers in the second and fourth century who said as much.
But there have been a few theologians through time who have kind of viewed, and we've talked about this sort of in the buildup here, viewed polygamy as sort of a post fall concession.
I think you could admit it to be such.
Luther famously said that, you know, polygamy was something like less ideal.
But certainly in particular contexts was permissible.
And he used that to sort of make sense of the patriarchs in the Old Testament.
And then you had guys like Calvin who came and said polygamy is actually worse than divorce.
And it's sort of a more grievous transgression, if you will.
And I think we talked about natural law.
I think most of the arguments sort of were built upon this idea of the created order one man, one woman in the garden, and that being sort of.
And polygamy sort of being a transgression of that natural law.
So, let's look at some of these quotes and we can see how this was articulated.
We can first take a look at Tertullian.
We're looking here in the second century.
Tertullian states here now, if any limitation is set to marrying, such as the spiritual rule, which prescribes but one marriage under the Christian obedience maintained by the authority of the paraclete or the Holy Spirit, it will be his prerogative to fix the limit who has once been diffuse in his permission.
So, here you can see that articulation.
Of the difference in the Old Testament, the diffuse permission around marriage now being changed in the New Testament with this prerogative to fix the limit to one marriage.
And this goes back, Joel, to that Christological view and sort of Christ's teachings sort of superseding what the Old Testament was commanding for marriage.
Then we can jump to the next one here, which is Ambrose.
So now we're talking about the fourth century, circa fourth century here.
Says, it is not licit for you, if your wife still lives, to take another wife, for indeed to seek another when you have your own is a crime of adultery.
So here we see the categorization of polygamy into the sin of adultery, violating the Decalogue.
This is most serious because you think in your sin that you should seek freedom in the law.
So this last sentence becoming particularly important because obviously, in various contexts, in sort of medieval and pre medieval Europe, there were.
Places you could live in, polygamy be permissible by law.
And here we see Ambrose saying, even if you live in a place where you have freedom in the law, you ought not, as a Christian, hide your polygamy behind that freedom, that it would still be sin.
And so pushing back against this idea that there's a pragmatic element to biblical marriage.
And so this is just simply to lay the groundwork for how the early church fathers are thinking about polygamy, obviously making different, various arguments, trying to wrestle with the Old Testament.
But I think it's helpful, at least, to just like I said, set that sort of framework.
And then we can talk about some of the complexities.
I also, Joel, you mentioned sort of two approaches to how we think about polygamy.
And specifically after the Matt Walsh clip, you said, firstly, it's not Christian.
And that way, I think we're saying it's not ideal.
It's not what God holds in highest esteem for creation.
And then you also said it's not Western.
And I think that's really important.
We think about what, well, what is the Western common law, English common law?
And American common law jurisprudence had to say about polygamy.
And obviously, we know that polygamy has been outlawed.
One of the big reasons that the Mormons, for example, were so persecuted in the 19th century is because of the practice of polygamy and the way that it violated laws.
Well, we can go all the way back to William Blackstone, so did some of the fundamental commentaries on the laws of England.
Blackstone, I'm sure people are familiar with, he would essentially review laws in medieval Europe and specifically medieval England and try to give justification and rationale to them.
And so much of it is biblical rationale, but there's also a ton of natural law baked in as well.
And it's super interesting.
But I have this quote here from William Blackstone just to bring a little bit of clarity to how it's distinctly non Western polygamy.
Blackstone says Another felonious attempt with regard to the holy estate of matrimony is what some have corruptly called bigamy, which properly signifies being twice married, but is more justly dominated polygamy, or having a plurality of wives at once.
Such second marriage, living in the former husband or wife, is simply void and a mere nullity.
By the ecclesiastical law of England.
So the church obviously outlawed polygamy at the time.
And yet, the legislature, on top of the church's prohibition, the legislature has thought it just to make it a felony, so a criminal act, by reason of its being so great a violation of the public economy and decency of a well ordered state.
For polygamy can never be endured under any rational civil establishment, whatever specious reasons may be urged for it by the Eastern nations, the fallaciousness of which has been fully proved by many sensible writers.
So, you see here both the ecclesiastical sort of prohibition.
So, we see the biblical argument being brought in, but also a natural argument.
He talks about public order and decency in terms of why polygamy would be outlawed.
And yeah, and so I think it becomes evident, whatever the case is, whether we're saying it's like Calvin, it's worse than divorce, or whether we're saying like Luther, it's a post fall concession, it's less than ideal.
It is certainly not Western, and it's certainly not something that should be promoted.
Yeah, polygamy seems to always attach itself to Christian heresies.
So, whether it's Islam, which is a Christian heresy, came in 700 AD, and you can tell from the Quran that Muhammad was listening to much of the oral tradition and even looking at some of the apostolic writers within the Christian, the biblical canon, and then taking some of those things which he heard as oral tradition and some of the things he saw written, and then kind of piggybacking off of those as he was writing the Quran.
So, you have like some of the The apocrypha, you know, legendary text of like Jesus from the womb as Mary and Joseph are fleeing, you know, King Herod and his edict, and they're going to Egypt, and Mary is hungry, and Jesus from her womb speaks to a tree, and the tree, you know, like bows over so that Mary can take some of its fruit and eat.
And Muhammad is picking up on these things because he thinks that it'll give credence to the Quran and to Islam because by piggybacking off of Christianity, but he doesn't know what's true Christianity and what are.
You know, just extra, you know, extra biblical apocrypha text or parts of oral tradition.
And so, my point is, Islam is a Christian heresy.
Judaism is a Christian heresy.
And so is Mormonism.
Mormonism is a Christian heresy.
And so, it's actually prevalent and quite common that within Christian heresies, there are, you know, allowances for polygamy, like Mormonism, you know, or Islam.
But within Christianity, which has dominated the West, you know, for, um, Easily a millennium, if not a millennia and a half at this point, it's been pretty tight with monogamy.
And the thing that I was going to add is, you know, because I've seen in the chat people saying, well, what do you do if a Muslim family converts to Christianity?
So, you know, there's missionary efforts in some African nation where Islam is the predominant religion, and you have families, you know, converting from Islam to Christianity.
And some of those families, the husband has, you know, two or three or four wives.
And I've actually dealt with some of these cases where I've helped to, to, Disciple a little bit, you know, some guys who were recently converted to Christianity from Islam and had more than one wife.
And they said, you know, like, what do we do?
Do we, you know, stay with our first wife, you know, or our most recent wife and send the other wives away?
And I think biblically, I think by implication, implicitly, the clear answer is that you remain married to all, as many wives as you have, three, four wives, whatever it is, you remain married to all of them.
You're faithful in your provision and protection to all of them.
You don't send any away and you don't take any new ones.
And then, per the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, when it comes to eldership, these guys who are now Christian, these families, that man would not be qualified to serve as an elder in the church.
And so I liken it.
The best way that I could describe it is I think it's similar to divorce and remarriage, especially divorce without biblical cause.
So, which is that's prevalent in our Western context.
Context, primarily a Western apostatized context where much of the West has turned its back on Christianity.
And so today, having couples in our churches, our Christian churches, that are on their second or third or fourth marriage, they're not married to two or three or four individuals simultaneously, but it is their second, third, and fourth marriage.
And by their own admission, and I've dealt with several of these cases, by their own admission, They would say, Yeah, I divorced my spouse.
They didn't divorce me.
I divorced them.
There wasn't biblical cause.
There was no adultery.
I just, you know, we just weren't getting along and we were angry with each other and I was angry at them and I filed for divorce.
And, you know, and I see that that was a sin now, but I made this mistake.
Maybe it was pre conversion before becoming a Christian, or in some cases, sadly, because sins still persist even for the Christian.
In some of these cases, I was converted.
I was a Christian, but I was an immature Christian.
And I chose to sin in this way, but I divorced my wife without biblical cause.
And since then, I took another wife and remarried her.
So, two sins actually occurred, biblically speaking one, an unlawful divorce.
And then, second, remarriage in light of an unlawful divorce rather than being reconciled to your former spouse.
So, two sins have occurred.
But here's the key language that I think will be helpful for the listener there's a difference between having sinned and sinning.
There's a difference in I sinned, past tense, I committed a sinful action, versus sinning, meaning I'm in an ongoing, continual state of sin.
And so, in those cases, the correct pastoral counsel to give, like if you have a man in your church who says, I unlawfully divorced my wife, this is now my second wife, I've been remarried, I shouldn't have done it, I realize that now, but I did it.
And so I'm planning on divorcing this wife also and then going and being remarried to my first wife.
I hope that any Christian pastor who's listening would have the correct biblical instincts to counsel that individual and say, no, no.
You sinned, yes, but you are not actively sinning now.
The best thing that you can do, according to the word of God, is now be a faithful husband in your current marriage.
Should you have entered into this current marriage, No, but God redeems even unlawful means, and you are currently in the will of God that is, in His sovereign will.
God allowed this to happen, this falls underneath the banner of His sovereignty.
And the marriage that you are now in is not an active, continual state of sin.
This is a legitimate marriage, it's a valid marriage.
It's not ideal, right?
Ideally, you would have been married once, you would not be on your second, or third, or fourth marriage.
Faithfulness in Current Marriages00:15:50
So, this is not An ideal marriage, but it is a marriage.
It is a legitimate marriage.
Whereas, if two homosexual men walk into church and are, according to them, allegedly married, according to them, and sadly, according to our provisions legally in our nation right now and what the law allows for with gay marriage, and they walk into the church and they say, Hey, we've been converted, we're Christians, what must I do to be a disciple of Jesus?
In that case, you would not only counsel, but you would command that they immediately, as soon as possible, absolve the marriage.
In the meantime, they should separate immediately.
They should live separately.
They should not engage in any inappropriate sexual behavior.
They should engage with each other as much as they have to legally to sort out the absolving, or if legally that's the only way to do it, divorce of this marriage, because it was never.
A legitimate marriage.
It wasn't marriage.
So you can counsel someone to end a marriage that's not marriage.
Not only counsel, but command someone, insist that they end a marriage that's not marriage.
But you cannot insist or command or counsel.
In fact, you're obligated to command in the opposite direction that anyone in any legitimate, valid marriage remain faithful in that marriage.
So now back to polygamy.
I think it would be likened to the scenario not of two homosexuals.
Who think they're married and according to the state are married, but in the sight of God are not married and therefore should end that alleged marriage.
I think that polygamy is less likened to that and more likened to the unlawful divorce and subsequent remarriage.
So the unlawful divorce and subsequent remarriage is someone who sinned but is not sinning.
So too, someone who is already.
So you're not counseling an 18 year old young man about what.
Uh, what has not yet been done, but what he should do in the future hey, you know, this is what you want to do you want to go out there and get as many wives as you can.
Like, no, that's bad counsel.
But if you are ministering in an Islamic context or even a Mormon context, and so and so, you know, walks into the church and he has not a husband, but he has two or three or four wives, um, he's not sinning, he sinned, he messed up, he did something less than ideal, less than God's ideal.
But he is not in an active, continual state of sin.
In fact, I would argue that it would be sin for him to divorce one or two or three and send away his wives.
So, the obligation now falls upon him to his fidelity is in the arena of protection and provision for those wives.
And part of the provision, so there's the spiritual and the physical aspect of both of those two categories spiritually protect and physically protect, spiritually provide and physically provide.
And when it comes to provision, physical provision, that's not only food and shelter and clothing and those kinds of things, but it also, one of those provisions in the physical provision category.
Is godly offspring.
So he actually has, she has conjugal rights, and not just for the purpose of union and pleasure, but for the purpose of procreation.
She has rights, and therefore he has a moral obligation under God and under Scripture that if he's going to be married to four wives, not only does he have to feed them all, clothe them all, shelter them all, and disciple and catechize them all, and take them all to church, he also has to have sex with all of them.
And he has to have Meaningful, godly sex with the intent, ultimately, it's up to the Lord whether or not these wives conceive, but with the intent and the design of providing for each of them multiple godly offspring.
And that actually falls underneath his moral obligation.
The last thing that I'll say on this, like Wes said in the beginning, to steal man, right?
So we are not polygamists, but we don't want to just have silly straw man arguments against it.
We want to give it a fair treatment.
To steal man.
The polygamy position, I've talked to guys who hold that view.
I've never talked to anybody who actually has more than one wife, but guys who hold that view.
And let me just start by saying in every case, when a guy says, I'm a polygamist, you've never met anyone like me, he's always single and always wants to have more sex.
And so, like, anybody's like, well, you know, Joel, I'm just trying to be biblically faithful.
I'm just looking at the text and I'm.
I find it somewhat fascinating.
It's a bit funny that the guys who are really, really concerned about being just faithful exegesis and biblical fidelity all tend to fit the same stereotype.
I haven't met that 50 year old man who has a wife and four children.
But I have met that 18 to 25 year old man who's currently single, wants to have more than one wife because he.
Is at the peak point in his life of testosterone and likes the idea of having lots of sex.
So I've talked to these guys, not the best representatives for the position, given their current earthly estate, the fact that they're 18 years old and single.
But some of these guys, and I've had guys send me position papers on this is something that I wrote or something that someone else wrote that I just want you to read it, just consider it with an open mind.
And so to steel man the argument, The best that I've come across in the pro polygamy camp, in terms of even then, I don't see, I haven't seen anything that's like this is the ideal, but permissible and permissible in the West today, you know, in our context today.
The argument that they would make is they would say biblically, the moral obligation of the man to his wife or wives is not sexual fidelity, that that's actually not the pledge that he makes.
It's the wife, the bride, that pledges her duty is submission and faithfulness.
Submission to his authority, which is why she can't have more than one husband.
Because what if she has two heads?
What if they contradict?
And she actually cannot fulfill her vow to be submissive to one federal head and then also simultaneously submissive to another federal head if they're both saying two things that are contradictory.
And so her obligation is submission and fidelity with love and sexual fidelity and faithfulness.
And so she has one husband because she cannot be sexually faithful with more than one, and she cannot be, in terms of authority, submitted with two authorities, more than one authority.
Whereas, on the husband's moral obligation, most of the biblical text, and I've had guys have sent me these papers and cited it and done the exegesis to the best of their ability, and here are all the relevant scriptural texts.
The husband is commanded in scripture.
It's not faithfulness and it's not submission.
It is protection and provision.
Protection and provision.
And from, you know, as just, you know, a form of, for argument's sake, it is, you know, physically possible within the realm of reason that a high caliber, successful, wise man, and I think if he's exceedingly wise, he probably will decide not to have.
More than one spouse, but a high caliber man can actually provide for more than one woman and protect more than one woman.
And still, that family unit, that household that involves one husband and more than one wife, would still only have one federal head, namely the one husband.
So there's a reason why, you know, an argument can be made for permissibility, although I don't think I'm not a polygamist.
I don't think that we should do polygamy.
But an argument could be made for polygamy in terms of one husband, multiple wives.
An argument cannot be made under any circumstances for one wife with multiple husbands.
And then getting into okay, what are these hypothetical circumstances where polygamy with one husband and multiple wives might be morally permissible?
Scenarios like that would be, and there are some cases where you have Christian authors talking about this.
And one that we'll probably get to, I think we have a quote from Rush Duny who argues for the permissibility of polygamy under some circumstances.
But one circumstance would be war.
If a nation is war torn and has been at war for several years with a formidable opponent, and half of the men of that nation, right, if it's a Christian nation seeking to be an ethical nation, they're not sending their wives and children into battle, so the women are still alive.
But the young men have gone off to the battle lines.
And if it's a heinous and tragic war, it is conceivable that you could have half the male population of a nation under these circumstances in a given time that have deceased.
And so there are twice as many young women looking for suitors as there are men.
And they need to repopulate their nation because of the atrocities of war and the immense loss of life that they've just experienced with half of their.
Young male population.
And there's also a consideration to be made from compassion to the sheer fact that if you strictly remain monogamous in these circumstances, half of the young women will die alone and childless.
And those fathers of this society who only had daughters, it was no fault of their own, that their name would be snuffed out of the annals of history and they would have no one to continue.
Their lines.
So there are scenarios where this could be conceivable.
But again, I'll end with this.
In our current apostate Western context here in America, in many nations in Europe, but I'll just stick with America because I'm American.
If anything, we have the opposite.
I'll refer you again to Ecclesiastes.
While I was searching, yet still not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.
In our current context, you can see even from the chat as we're broadcasting this episode live.
The problem that we keep running into is that there are simply not enough godly, submissive, Christian, modest women.
There seem to be far more men who are suited for Christian marriage than there are women.
And so to think that in this context, it would be ideal is absurd or even permissible.
For a Christian man saying that it is virtuous and morally biblically permissible for him to nab up three godly women as his wives when there may only be four godly women currently in these United States that are single and all these other men who are desperately seeking a spouse, I think is atrocious.
I think that it's theft.
I think that it's selfish.
I think it's greedy.
I think that it's immoral and wrong.
Yeah.
No, I like that pushback.
Rush Dooney brings that point up that many men, in their pursuit of justifying polygamy, it's so short sighted.
So, okay, you have one wife, and with that comes duties to in laws, for example.
So, those children that you have with her, also the grandparents should be able to see them and enjoy them.
There's also going to be brother in laws, father in laws that are going to say, hey, if you don't care for her, if you're abusive, we're going to come to your home and we're going to beat you.
And so, what young man looks at that and then says, You know what, I wish?
I wish I just had more of that, more in laws, more grandparent duties and dinners, like going to dinner and honoring your father in law, your mother in law.
That's a good thing.
So, it's so short sighted when men, especially in our time in the West, these United States, where the ratio is about 50 50 to say all the duties and everything that comes with it, I'm not even doing one.
I think I would like three, 4X the multiple of it.
It's incredibly short sighted for something so shallow as I would like to have more sex.
Now, I'm going to push back a little bit.
I'm going to use Rush Juni because I think my intention here is if we're looking at the scripture, we're going especially in the biblical law.
It's interesting how there are just areas where the law doesn't strike us where we think it would.
It doesn't come across to us the way we think it would.
For example, lesbianism.
Lesbianism is not punished by death in the Old Covenant.
Like if we're going through the text, Rush Juni says this, you look at it, it's only men that are held liable to that high degree.
Now, there could have been an argument from prevalence, even though Paul does recognize that in Romans 1.
But there's times where the law looks at men and women and goes, hey, these are not the same.
For example, if a married man was to sleep with an unmarried woman, he had to pay his dowry.
He had to provide all the services to her, take care of her for the rest of her days, but it was not the death penalty.
And so when we do look at the law, what we recognize, I'm going to read Rush Dooney on this, is he says, Rush Dooney, this is from a lecture that he gave on monogamy.
In other words, here in the law, as elsewhere, we find the biblical principle to whom much is given, much is expected.
We see, therefore, that the law only tolerated polygamy while establishing monogamy as the standard.
The reason clearly was that the polygamist family was still a family.
A lower kind of family life, but still a form of family life and therefore tolerable.
The next example, again, this is from the same lecture.
In passage after passage, monogamy is assumed to be the God ordained standard.
On the other hand, we must say that polygamy is recognized as a fact and regulated.
It is actually less prominent in biblical history than most people believe.
The number of polygamous marriages that are cited in the Bible are relatively few.
It is only that people notice them more than anything else.
The case of Solomon is so conspicuous.
Now, to bring it to today is again, for the reasons we just stated, But as a young Christian man in the United States seeking polygamy, is he in sin?
Yes.
But actually, I think the sin here is for one, it's a duty, it's a sin against his fathers.
Solomon and Modern Duty00:15:46
If you are a Western man, your fathers built this world on monogamy.
I think of Bach, I think of C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, G.K. Chesterton.
Those men all had one woman for life that they married, that they were soulmates with.
Norman Rockwell, they produced incredible art, incredible works of fiction, incredible theological writings.
The Western standard has been we are not the world of eunuchs, of harems, the world of a man's status is measured by how many women he can get pregnant.
Guys, we're European.
And Europeans said, you have freedom, but that freedom is bound by duty.
The oath that you took at the altar, forsaking all others till death to us part, that actually matters for something.
And so I think the best pushback against it to give, and we're giving it here, for one, is saying the reason you're pursuing this is the desire for more sex, but also, too, Polygamy is an Eastern thing.
So, even if the Bible in its law at the time says, hey, we do recognize that there are scenarios, for example, captive war brides or a scenario where much of your population is wiped out by war, where this is a form of the family that is acceptable, that is not today.
Now, we don't go back and we don't condemn, I don't think, I wouldn't, the patriarchs like David, potentially Moses and Abraham.
They were in a time where that was something that was normal, permissive.
I mean, Abraham is essentially managing a small nation, hundreds of fighting men, massive amounts of wealth.
And literally, his only wife that he has, she hasn't been able to have a kid for 90 some years.
So there's an understandability to it there.
And it's her idea.
And it's her idea.
The one case where he shouldn't have listened to her.
But I would say none of those apply today.
So I can perfectly say, yeah, I understand why David had eight wives.
That was the time he was king.
I mean, the dude's literally like fighting for his life, seems like every single page of scripture.
And he's still a man after God's own heart.
Now he doesn't get to build the temple.
No one who converted, for example, from Islam to Christianity and has multiple wives, he can't be an elder.
An elder must be a husband of one wife.
But even in the case of David not being able to build the temple, God cites the reason, and it's not because he had more than one wife, it's because he shed too much blood.
And if it was because of having more than one wife, then it would be a bit ironic that his son Solomon ends up building the temple, who had a few wives.
Yep.
So the point is, I don't have to go all the way back and begin to condemn the patriarchs to say today, this is not something that Shabika pursued.
Andrew Tate.
Is selling the lie.
He's telling you to revolt against your fathers, revolt against the tradition that made us, revolt against, this would definitely be specifically Protestant.
I think of the Westminster Confession that says marriage is between one man and one woman.
No man may lawfully add to himself more than one wife.
You are revolting and sinning against your fathers, against your Protestant tradition, and famous words, stop it.
And you're breaking the law.
Andrew Tate is Eastern.
Yeah, and you're breaking the law.
Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states.
So if you are a quote unquote polygamist, you are a magistrate.
Yeah, you're sinning against a magistrate.
In fact, I think we'll take it from two angles.
I think from a church perspective, I don't know of any church in the West that would let you become a member.
A parishioner in good standing, being married simultaneously to multiple people.
Short of being a convert.
Short of being a convert.
Yeah.
Like if you came in and it was already done.
Yeah, right.
But in terms of sort of ordaining a marriage or overseeing.
I don't know any Christian church that would officiate that.
Officiate, yeah.
Precisely.
And so you have both the legal aspect, you'd be violating.
If you're in a church as a member or a parishioner, you'd be violating the ecclesiastical aspect and them not sanctioning the marriage.
So, those are also things to think about.
But I think, like Wes, I really like the Rush Tree quote.
I like how you framed it.
I think what I walk away as I read this saying is there are all sorts of reasons polygamy will be sin or would be sin.
But it isn't inherent to the polygamy, it's inherent to the context, it's inherent to the reasons you're being married, the circumstances by which you're married, so on and so forth.
Is it legal?
All of these things would sort of lead me to believe that 99% of all polygamous relationships are sin.
In this day and age.
And saying it that way is going to get you farther with the red pill young man today.
And I see where you're coming from.
It's good to say, I like that language of saying that it's not inherently sinful because you could conceive of a scenario going back to what I was talking about earlier, but in Islamic nations, let's say some sub Saharan African nation where it's predominantly Islamic.
And this guy, let's say he doesn't already, so it's not the scenario of he already has multiple brides as he's.
Now coming to Christian faith, but let's say he's recently converted.
He's a single eligible bachelor, and he happens he's in an impoverished country.
And let's say that in the scenario, he becomes a Christian and he's a single bachelor.
He was a Muslim recently, but now he's been a Christian for a year and he's joined a Christian church.
And in this Christian church, let's say that there are 20 young, single, God fearing Christian women, and he's the only single man, and there's no sign.
Of there being any more single men in the future.
And he's rich, he's eligible, he's successful, and he's God fearing and Christian.
In a scenario like that, it may be permissible that he's okay, instead of 19 of you losing out, 15 of you are going to lose out because I'm going to pick five.
But that is not our context.
Yep, at all.
Exactly.
And being, and again, having kind of like you have to be honest with the law, the law of the Old Testament, God's law, which is good and right, just did not forbid explicitly that type of arrangement.
And so you just be honest and say it didn't.
Now, I don't think it would be wise potentially because of X, Y, and Z.
But if we're honest with the text, yeah, David had a similar arrangement.
It's similar to the slavery conversation.
It's like we don't want to just sit here and be like, oh, slavery.
Oh, oh my gosh.
Oh, and clutch our pearls and this is the most terrible thing.
Terrible, terrible, terrible.
There's a certain point where it's like, You're calling God terrible.
There are certain things that God allowed for that our, you know, lib mind takes offense at.
And slavery, not in all contexts, not in every manner, but you think of, again, like Old Testament context where, like, you just went to war.
And there's some scenarios where, by divine edict, God says, wipe them all out, the women and children, like Jericho.
But there may be other scenarios where God actually allowed in the Old Testament, and this is the case where you don't actually have to kill them all.
And so then what do you do with all these people?
And in some of those cases, what you do is you enslave them and then you treat them fairly.
But they are slaves, they become your property, and God allowed for this.
And I'm not saying, again, I'm not saying, so let's bring it back, let's do it, you know.
But I'm not, I'm also not going to sit here and say, you know what, I'm better than God.
I am morally, because that's ultimately what you're saying.
You just have to recognize that and have just a little bit of humility.
Whenever you find yourself being more compassionate than Jesus, whenever you find yourself being morally superior, Superior to God, you probably should just sit down, you know, count backwards from 10, catch your breath, you know, rethink your inks.
That's not a good place to be.
I'll just give you a hint as a basic rule of thumb when you think you're better than God, it's not a good place to be.
And so that's why, you know, we're in this episode.
It's like, all right, so our episode today is polygamy, you know, sinful.
And, you know, the cameras, you know, tune up and we say, yes, thanks for tuning in.
I hope you've enjoyed this episode.
Please subscribe to our YouTube channel.
That's why this episode is not as short and simple as that, because the reason why we're offering nuance and circumstances and what does church history say?
What does the Western tradition say?
What did Rush Dooney say?
What did this guy say?
The reason why we're doing that is because we're not going to sit in these chairs and tell you that polygamy is great, because it's not.
But we're also not going to say it's inherently sinful and exalt ourselves.
To a station of moral superiority against God.
And that's actually, so it's like, oh, well, you guys are just dancing around.
Like, what we're, yeah, we are dancing.
What we're dancing around is arrogance.
What we're trying to avoid is falling into the pitfall of moral superiority against God, which is just spiritual, brazen pride and arrogance.
I think of Job where God calls him a man who's blameless in all his ways.
Job had hundreds of slaves.
So it's like, Job was blameless.
Hang on, God.
Hang on.
Hang on, God.
He was not, says my 21st century liberal or liberal.
You're a fool.
You're proud.
I like it.
Rush Junior in the Institutes of Biblical Law.
He talks about the ultimate sin, let's say, for the Sixth Amendment.
Let's take murder.
He says murder actually is a sin precisely because it's taking the life in a way that's unauthorized by God.
In other words, making God and usurping God's authority as the sort of preeminent sin.
And so that's why he can argue.
You talk about genocide, for example, and the cases in scripture of genocide.
It's well, it was authorized by God and therefore not murder because God is the standard.
We don't have that today because we don't have prophets today.
There's no prescriptive text for all people in all times and all places to exact genocide.
So that's not a universal prescriptive principle in the scripture.
Instead, it's always descriptive passages of certain times and certain peoples and certain places.
And it always came by divine revelation.
And we no longer have capital P prophets receiving new revelation from God that's extra biblical, which means that we can never have conceivably in this gospel age until the final return of Jesus Christ when he separates the sheep from the goats, Jesus will genocide all the goats.
No women goats, no children goats, none of them get to remain.
They will all be cast into hell, and Christ will do it himself, and he will do it to the praise of the glory and honor of his father.
And it'll be good and it'll be right and it'll be just and all those things.
But we in this gospel age, we are operating, we fly by the radar.
We have the biblical text.
This is our revelation.
Our eyes are not rolling back in our head.
We're not doing the witchcraft and wizardry, Bethel school, the Protestant Hogwarts.
We don't do that.
God is not saying.
Speaking in that way any longer.
We do have divine revelation, but it's inscripturated, it's canonized.
And there's no prescriptive text that says, under these circumstances, in this type of war, here's where you commit genocide.
We don't have that.
So then we follow just war theory, which is garnered principles, depending who you're citing, seven give or take principles that are implicit but prescriptive from the whole of biblical text.
And none of those allow for genocide.
So that's like why we can say, you know, as an axiom, you can't walk on water, Joel, and I wouldn't be lying.
Right.
But God can make a man walk on water.
Right.
Yeah.
And you think I'm exaggerating when I say like the West and monogamy.
So, Greece and Rome at the time of Christ, this is pre Christianity spreading out by the 300s or so, they had laws in the books that only the man could have one legal wife, especially in Rome.
In Asia, a man would typically have one legal wife, but concubines were very common.
In most of Africa, a little bit different in Egypt, but below the Sahara Desert, it was the same thing.
It was tribes, it was the chieftain of the tribe who accumulated all the wives.
Some of Northern Europe, some of the rulers there, they would have multiple wives.
Monogamy really has been a Western thing, and that's even prior to Christianity for the most part.
Tacitus, when he's in Germania, I think, when he visits the German tribes and sees life there, they held adultery as a terrible sin.
If a woman committed adultery, she was, if not executed, run out of the town.
Her commitment to the marriage was taken.
Very, very seriously.
And so, again, if you're an American and you're thinking about what is my duty to my forefathers, my duty to those who came before me, my Christian forebears, monogamy is really high up there in just a way it isn't in the East.
Yeah, right.
Yeah, we looked it up before we started recording and looked at multiple citations.
But even pre Christianity in the West, Northern European tribes, and then certainly the Greeks and the Romans, monogamy was the norm.
It wasn't universal and exclusive.
But primarily, the exception was first and foremost an exception.
And then, secondly, it was almost entirely relegated to nobility.
It would be rare cases of individuals like a Charlemagne type figure, like a king or a lord or someone like that that didn't have a son to further his line and his wife was barren.
And so he was permitted, instead of sending her away.
Charlemagne had about eight wives and 12 concubines.
Yeah.
So instead of sending this one away, he was permitted to take others.
So it was a rarity.
It was narrowly applied to men of high estate and nobility, but the average common man, even pre Christianity, pre Christendom in Western societies, was monogamous for centuries before even hearing the gospel, before even hearing of the Christian faith.
And so there's something to be said.
I'll end with this and we'll go to our last commercial break and then we're going to do super chats.
But I'll end with this.
The chicken or the egg, there is something to be said for that.
Why has the West been so successful?
First and foremost, as a Christian and as a pastor to boot, I'm going to say that the West has been successful because of the immense mercy and kindness and grace of God, and because the West was thoroughly saturated in Christian revival after revival and reformation, with deep Christian roots stretching back a millennia to a millennia and a half.
That's first and foremost.
That is true.
I also, so this is not a substitute, but in addition, I do think that there is something to be said for why the West seemed to be a more conducive soil for the seed of the gospel to be planted and bring forth.
Like Jesus even talks about, you know, like that, you know, some will tenfold, twentyfold, thirty, a hundredfold returns, right?
So they're.
Gospel Growth in the West00:05:18
There's always going to be scenarios, whether it be on an individual basis or whether it be on a collective basis of different nationalities or whatever it may be.
There's always, or different eras, different time periods, there's always a principle within Christianity because Christianity does not assert egalitarianism where the gospel goes forth and the ground, the person, or the people are in fact receptive.
And so they genuinely are born again, they genuinely are converted and Christianized.
And yet, some people, some soils produce a tenfold return and others a hundredfold return.
And I think that you have to acknowledge at some level that what made the West incredible was Christianity.
And yet, also, Christianity went to many places and it thrived, it really took root and produced a massive return in the West.
And I think that monogamy might be.
Actually, I think it's a significant concept just to ponder that monogamy might be one of the core principles and building blocks of Western society pre Christ, pre Christianity, that made Christianity take such deep root and produce such great returns.
Whereas Christianity going to other places, there's an argument to be made like you think of Sub Saharan Africa.
Well, Christianity came later.
So, in some cases, you can make arguments of, well, Christianity has been alive and well for 1500 years over there, but only 150 years or 250 years over here.
Sure.
But there are plenty of Eastern places, aside from just Sub Saharan Africa, certain Asian contexts, where Christianity went early, just as early, arguably from history, just as early as it came to the West, to European context.
And so it's not that the Europeans just got a 500 year head start, but there are other Eastern societies where Christianity came, it did take root, it did actually produce something.
There was a return, a tenfold return, let's say, genuine born again converts and society being shaped for the better by Christian virtues and Christian principles, but did not have the same hundredfold return that it had among Europeans.
And I think that part of it is because the soil there, although conducive enough for genuine born again conversion, was not as conducive.
For civilization building, for world shaping policies and innovation.
And I think one of those premier factors might be their view of the family unit and monogamy.
Westerners are monogamous because of Christianity and were not monogamous in large part before Christianity, which is part of why Christianity flourished there so greatly.
And so to have discussions of Oh, but maybe polygamy is good, is as the kids would say, retarded.
Let's go to our last commercial break and we will be right back handling the super chats that you guys put in.
If you haven't put one in yet, go ahead, give us a question or a comment.
We appreciate your kindness and generosity in supporting this ministry.
We'll go to the commercial break and then we'll come back and as quickly as possible handle the super chats and call it a day.
Hello, brothers in Christ.
Let me ask you something real.
Are you truly protecting and providing for your wife and children?
Not just in this life, but the one to come.
Here's a reality check only 45% of adults in America have life insurance, and of those, nearly two thirds are underinsured.
That's not good stewardship.
And as Christian husbands and fathers, we're called to do better.
But what if you could protect your family's future and wisely grow your wealth right now?
That's where private family banking comes in.
It's a proven strategy that allows you to leverage your existing cash flow, build tax free legacy wealth, and give your family lasting security, all while aligning with your biblical call to provide and protect.
This is what it looks like to turn post mill talk into post mill action.
Tap the link in the show notes to book your free discovery call and take your next step toward financial discipleship and multi generational impact.
In the future, it may be hard to persuade people that what happened starting in the spring of 2020 really did happen.
A fake pandemic was the signal that one morning began the foreclosure on everything that had, until the evening before, been central to the idea of democratic constitutional republics.
Rejecting Liberal Egalitarianism00:11:05
The most shocking thing was not so much that this started to happen, but that almost no one seemed to object.
To it happening.
Almost no one sought to defend the rights and liberties being overturned.
Leftists clamored for more and more tyranny, while most conservatives fell silent.
In this book, The Abolition of Reality, Irish dissident leader John Waters describes not merely what happened, but the meaning of what happened, in what may well be judged by history as the most heinous crime of all time.
This book, as Winston in 1984 said, is For the future, for the unborn.
Get it from Western Front Books at the link below.
That's www.Western Front Books.com.
Again, that's www.westernfrontbooks.com.
Sending your son to a competitive school often places a significant additional burden on the family.
While these schools promised high academic rigor, character development, and preparation for top tier universities, much of the workload ultimately falls on the parents.
The combination of early dismissals, as early as 2 30 p.m., heavy homework demands, and sports commitments.
Can create an overwhelming and stressful experience for both students and their families.
At St. John's, our philosophy is different.
We prioritize structure, balance, and efficiency to ensure students thrive academically, physically, and spiritually.
Here's how we do it our instructors are the cornerstone of our commitment to excellence, bringing a unique blend of expertise, discipline, and leadership to the classroom.
Earning $200,000 annually, our educators are among the most accomplished in their fields.
Nine hour school days, classes run from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., maximizing learning during school hours.
Our confession brings clarity, fosters unity, and glorifies Christ as we seek to instruct, develop, and mentor young men in loving God and neighbor rightly, to the glory of God.
Ordo amoris et soli deo.
Gloria.
And finally, our curriculum, Integra, is a challenging blend of STEM with classical Christian humanities.
Campuses opening in the summer of 2026 in Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio.
Visit saintjohns.academy to learn more and sign up today.
Again, that's saintstjohns.academy to learn more today.
All right, we're back.
We're going to go as quick as we can.
My oldest daughter, We have enlisted her this summer in horse riding lessons.
And this is her last horse riding lesson today.
And it has started pretty much right about now.
So I got to go at least catch some of it.
Super excited for it.
From which wife?
I'm just kidding.
From the one wife that I have.
All right.
So here's our first super chat from Brian Johnson.
He gave us 10 bucks.
Thanks, Brian.
We appreciate it.
He said, If you converted a Muslim man with four wives to Christ, what would you recommend he do with his polygamous wife?
We would recommend he takes four more.
No, we would say you keep the wives.
You do not send them away.
You don't dishonor them.
Part of what you have to understand is these are women who have now already been married.
They are no longer virgins.
They are going to be less desirable.
It's not that they could just go and pick up another husband.
You are sending them away to perpetual singleness.
And by virtue of sending them away, assuming that each of these four wives have born children for you, you're sending away your children, which is unlawful and immoral and wicked.
Or you're keeping the children and separating the children from their mother.
So, the only moral permissible thing to counsel that Muslim man with four wives is you keep your four wives, you do your best not to show favoritism among your four wives, you fulfill your duties, both spiritually and physically, of protection and provision for each of your four wives and all the children they bear to you.
And then, per 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, you serve as a faithful member in the church and you cannot be an elder.
All right.
That would be the answer.
Wes, you want to take Nick Bonner?
All right.
Nick Bonner, two super chats.
Thanks so much, Nick.
First one, $20.
Nick asked, or really said, the self proclaimed top G, that's Andrew Tay, is indeed a fool, just not for the reasons Big Eva says he is.
And I really like the way of saying that.
That's correct.
Like there is something about men who are championship fighters, world class chess champions, that reflects some level of discipline and self mastery and tenacity and ambition.
And so that's like, insofar as young men see that, courage, unafraid, don't care about what the cold is like.
The Olympics mocked Christ at the Last Supper, and Andrew and his brother were out in front of the French consulate protesting on behalf of Christians.
Right.
So, there is tons of reasons why he is a fool.
But exactly to Nick's point, it's not the reasons that Big Eva points out.
That's right.
And Nick's second chat, another $20, Nick said, Every girl I've dated in the church claimed that she wasn't a feminist and wanted me to lead until I shared my traditional views that they disagreed with.
Complementarians affirm male headship in theory only.
That's right.
It's like that office skit from Ryan where he's like, I want to be led, but just when I'm in the mood to be led.
Yeah, he says, I want to be led, but lead me.
Only when I want to.
I love the idea of male headship.
He's the one that's working hard and working late, but in practicality, I hate it.
Theoretical male headship.
Yeah, no, complementarianism is just functional egalitarianism.
So you're absolutely right.
Sad, but very true.
You can do the last one.
Yeah, Dapper Dan sends $5.
He says, Change my mind.
When a man does something wrong, mainstream conservatives blame the man.
When a woman does something wrong, they blame liberalism.
All right, I'm going to give my best argument.
Ready?
Yeah.
The only thing I would push back on that is I would say so he said, when mainstream conservatives, when a man does something wrong, they blame the man.
And when a woman does something wrong, they blame liberalism.
The only slight tweak that I would have to this is I would say, mainstream conservatives, when a man does something wrong, they blame the man.
And when a woman does something wrong, they also blame the man.
It's like the woman did something wrong and the man is at fault.
And the only other thing that I would do to tweak it slightly is I would include in that not just mainstream conservatives, but also reformed Protestant pastors.
It is 100% what you hear from them virtually all the time.
Is your wife cheated on you?
Sounds like you were a bad husband.
Like all the time.
So it's not, it'd be one thing if it's just Ben Shapiro, you know, or mainstream conservative, you know, political pundits.
But we have grown very weary and tired of hearing this exact same rhetoric from pastors over and over and over again.
And the answer is simple.
It's because they are feminist.
They can say they're complementarian and they only have male elders, and they can try to showboat all of their conservative cards and their credentials.
But at the end of the day, they are still well within the frame, the permissible, acceptable, current framework of liberalism.
They are liberals walking around in a Christian skin suit.
It is 20th century liberalism.
It may be the best of liberalism, it may be the most conservative.
That liberalism can be, but it is still a shape, a form, a version of liberalism.
And until modern Western Christians can break out of that grid, break out of the matrix of liberalism, and I think the linchpin of liberalism is egalitarianism.
So until they can get rid of egalitarianism across the board, as it applies to patriarchy rather than egalitarianism between men and women, as it applies to nationality or ethnos or race.
As it applies to peoples, different groups of peoples at every single level, and as it applies to individuals, that Johnny and Jackie are not the same.
Johnny and Jimmy are not the same.
And there's a certain extent to where Johnny and Jamal are not quite the same.
And until pastors are willing to say that without any malice, without any envy, without being rude or disrespectful, with a desire to see Johnny and Jimmy and Jackie and Jamal all in heaven together.
All saved, all loving the Lord, but until they're able to say that they're not the same and that we should not treat them the same in the sight of God, equal in dignity.
In the sight of the law, in terms of legal provisions, okay.
But beyond that, in society and culture as a whole, we must recognize distinctions.
I really believe that egalitarianism, the steamrolling of all distinctions, is the linchpin, the engine of this freight train of liberalism.
And we can't stop the train of liberalism and return to historic Christianity without disabling the engine of the train, which is egalitarianism.
And you can't just sit there and say, well, I don't like this one portion of the engine, right?
Because I'm patriarchal.
So I don't like egalitarianism as it applies to men and women.
But egalitarianism as it applies to America and Haiti, I love that, right?
Haitians, you can, they're just, you know, nations are just fungible widgets and you can just.
You can just uproot and input 500,000 Haitians and remove 500,000 European Americans, and nobody will bat an eye because it's just the same as long as they memorize the Declaration of Independence and have eaten some apple pie and gone to one Fourth of July celebration like Vivek Ramaswamy, they can wear the Texas button up shirt and a cowboy hat, then we're good.
If that's you, you are an egalitarian.
You may think you're not because you've only thought of egalitarianism as it applies to sex, gender, male and female.
But you are still in egalitarianism, which means you are still on the liberal train, which means you are not on the historic Christianity train, and we won't win.
You cannot punch your way out of the frame while remaining in the frame.
If you want to win, you have to unplug.
Christian Inequality Debate00:02:33
You have to reject the whole thing.
You have to say it's all a lie.
I will not be a lib.
I will not be a lib.
I'm sorry, I will not be, but just a little bit of a lib, just a teensy little lib.
I will not be a lib.
I'm a Christian, gosh darn it.
Hell or high water, I am a Christian and I will not condemn all my fathers throughout church history and all the apostolic writers and all the Old Testament texts and God Himself to hell because my modern sensibilities tell me that my moral framework is superior to theirs.
I will not do it.
I reject liberalism wholesale.
And until we can do that, we will not restore the West because we will not restore the very thing that made it great, which is.
Historic Christianity, not 20th century liberalism, walking around in a Christian skin suit.
So, you must, you must, you must reject it.
You must reject it.
All right.
That's all we got for today.
I hope you guys have been blessed.
And Lord willing, we will see you on Friday with a special guest.
We have Dr. Stephen Wolfe lined up to come on the show.
And it's really fitting with my, you know, Indian monologue, you know, rampage.
I was thinking whatever I was on, just a, you know, rant.
I'd like to think that it was a holy rant, but it fits well with our next.
Episode Friday, 3 p.m. Central Time.
Dr. Stephen Wolf will be discussing with him the article that he recently published through American Reformer.
And it's on what is it called?
Christian Inequality.
Christian Inequality.
The defense thereof.
A defense thereof.
Yeah.
So he's defending and explicitly labeling it, naming it as Christian.
And what is it?
Equality?
Nope.
Inequality.
That'll be the topic for Friday.
It's sure to be a banger.
And Stephen Wolf, I think he always speaks about these things in courageous ways.
Ways that are responsible, well read, and courageous, but also it's always rooted.
It's always, there's citations, there's reasons.
It's not just flying by the seat of his pants, it's not unhinged.
And I have no doubt that he will produce for us a well grounded argument for why historic Christianity allowed for and even beyond that, acknowledged and admitted inequality in a hierarchical world.
That God built within this natural order.
So that'll be our episode on Friday, and we hope to see you then.