Leaving the Garden; Entering the Holy City

A few days ago, the top news story on Google news featured the striking announcement: "Over 400 children taken from Texas Polygamist Ranch."

The investigation began when a 16-year old girl phoned Texas authorities, stating that she had been physically and sexually abused, and, at age 15, had born the child of her then 50-year old husband. Officials raided the ranch, removing 401 (no, that is not a typo) under-aged girls.

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (FLDS), associated with the now jailed polygamist Warren Jeffs, split off from the Mormon church about a century ago, when the Mormon church officially disavowed polygamy. They take quite literally the Biblical command to be "fruitful and increase in number" (Genesis 1:28), and coupled with Joseph Smith's original revelation, assert that polygamy is one way of fulfilling the divine mandate, and suggest that men should have at least 3 wives.

Interesting. (And illegal.)

It's interesting to me because in reading the Old Testament, we see many examples of polygamy. Lamech. Abraham. Jacob. Solomon. just to name a few... we also very clearly see the command to "be fruitful and increase in number." And yesterday morning in church, one of the pastors told us that "God longs for us to be back in the garden."

So why are we not jumping on board here? Why does this article make us angry?

See I think there's a catch here. And the catch is this: we are not intended to continue living in the same cultural scenario that Lamech, Abraham, and Jacob lived in. And I think there is a fallacy in saying "God longs for us to be back in the garden." Allow me to explain...

I've been reading a book on controversial issues in the Bible, namely "Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals" (William Webb) in which the author addresses issues such as polygamy, etc. Dr. Webb introduces a hermeneutic (a method for applying scripture) called the "redemptive movement hermeneutic." In essence, his argument is that scripture often called the Israelites and the surrounding nations to a standard which was counter-cultural. Yet the trajectory of the counter-cultural standard was always redemptive. The standard itself was not a perfect reflection of God's ideal, but its trajectory always moved people towards God's kingdom coming. His argument is far more complex, but for the sake of clarity, a simple example will suffice:

The Bible sets certain standards for humane treatment of slaves, in such manner, under a static and literal hermeneutic, endorsing slavery. However, modern Christians (at least in the USA) have no difficulties saying that slavery is not right. How does the disconnect work, then, hermeneutically? Why do we believe what we believe, and can we do it, without actually discrediting the validity of scripture? Dr. Webb argues that this is where the redemptive movement hermeneutic comes in...

The redemptive-movement hermeneutic says that scripture was counter-cultural to its time, in mandating humane treatment of slaves... it began moving us in a trajectory of equal treatment for humankind. In other words, the movement from culture to Biblical mandate was one of change, and the trajectory of that change was redemptive treatment of one group of humankind. Modern abolition of slavery is a continuation of that trajectory of redemption, Webb argues, continuing to move us towards heaven and God's ideal standard.

But back to the garden and polygamy... If you look closely at scripture, I don't think you can substantiate the idea that God intends for us to return to the garden. See, I think we see the same type of redemptive movement in scripture from the Garden of Eden to the New Jerusalem... In the same way that scripture calls the Israelites to a counter-cultural, higher standard, so too, the trajectory of Scripture is calling the Israelites out of the primitive (the Garden) into the developed (the New City).

So, here's the punchline: A return to polygamy, child-brides, and nomadic isolation living standards (a return to the Garden) would actually be counter to the redemptive trajectory that God has set in place.

Now I want to be very careful to ensure that you don't hear what I'm not saying. I am not saying that we throw out Old Testament law. I am not saying that the Bible is outdated. Nor am I saying that I can glibly determine how to interpret scripture.

What I am saying is this:

I feel fairly confident that you will agree with my conclusions that polygamy is rightly illegal. But I hope you will actually think about why you think that is true.

• Why was it okay in the Old Testament, but not now?
• Can you uphold a standard of consistent hermeneutics to justify your argument?
• And can you apply it across the board, not just on one issue?

That's something to think about.