Page 192 of 312

a diamond for each?

In case you’ve been making a list of reasons why you shouldn’t take on a second wife, I’d like to add another. 

Lately I’ve been pondering the advantages and disadvantages of polygamy. Not that I’ll be participating in the near future, because a) my husband wouldn’t be much for that and b) throughout the course of history, rarely – if ever – has a woman been allowed multiple husbands, only vice versa. I think it’s evidence of evolution in that women are smart enough to only take on one spouse’s issues. Besides, who would want to increase the count of in laws? (I LOVE YOU Jim and Carol!)

No, the sister-wives thinking has been provoked by a recent (fiction) book the book club finished, in which the heroine joins a Native American community and becomes wife #3. The statement is made during the last 1/3 of the book that “Silent One took her rightful place as the first wife in our husband’s bed.” I’m still wrapping my head around that. 
Yesterday at church the message was centered around sexuality and marriage. Generally I appreciated the message as it was quite holistic, understanding this element’s role within the larger picture of a person’s life. And overall the point was to create stronger marriages from the outset, as is God’s plan. 
Then somehow I ended up in 2 Samuel this morning (which is a stumper; I could’ve sworn I left off in Esther, but there was my blue bookmarker. I took it as an omen.) and read a passage that included David’s sons born while he lived in Hebron. Five of them, if I recall. All born to different wives. 
I thought, and the Bible is our model for healthy marriages
So I have some research to do. Summaries forthcoming. I understand that God works with His people starting with where they are, and David and the Kings were in a polygamist society. There are differences between what God permits and what God deems as the best possible scenario. I’m so far chalking it up to that, right along with the animal sacrifices, but I think with a bit of digging we might uncover a few nuggets of gold that would be advantageous to our current society. But all of this is future-talk. Let me return to my polygamist thought of the day. 
I do recall a recommendation in a certain book, probably Titus but it could be 1 Timothy, definitely a letter from Paul. Or Peter. (I’m too lazy to look it up at the moment). But the recommendation for a good leader in the church is a man who “is of one wife”. Generally in our settings we skim right on past this one (and go for “doesn’t drink too much wine”), but upon some deeper thinking, I’m wondering if we stopped to shallow when we ask the question. 
In these societies, generally the man with the most wives is the King or Chief or whatever title is given the leader. I believe this is a sign of power (read Esther and really give some thought as to what Xerxes had going on. It’s disturbing.) and of wealth. I mean, the more wives and children, the more mouths to feed. It seems Solomon was doing his shopping at Sams Club with his hundreds. But I think it can be inferred that the multiplicity of marriage was a sign of stature to the culture. 
So. What if. What if?! What if Paul’s recommendation wasn’t simply because he was making a statement about marriage – though, perhaps he was. But in looking at such a recommendation in conjunction to the many other mandates of Paul, I think there’s plenty of room to wonder if the character of a man of one wife was more desirable than that of a man with 2, 3 or 20. Why? Because a man with one wife was lower on the social totem pole. He had less money and probably therefore less power. And this is exactly the kind of guy that Jesus tended to take along as a disciple. 
It made me wonder: what kind of guys – and gals – are on our church boards today? If it were acceptable by our society, would they be the kind of gents who would have multiple lady friends as a way of showing prestige? Are they the ones with the money, power and influence? Or the ones with a deep servants heart? (I’m not saying that it can’t be both, but a wise man once said, “it’s harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God…”)
While looking for a new church home in our new town we ventured to a church and even went to an “exploration class.” We decided it wasn’t a great fit for us for multiple reasons, but one of them was the braggy-braggy attitude of the elder that led the class. It was quite the public display of how important he felt church leadership was, though he was sure to mention that none of them did it for the prestige. It irked us then, and now upon reflection, it irks me again. 
So, add another notch to the list of reasons why adding another woman to the house might not be such a good idea. Right alongside the dough you’re forking out for engagement rings, tuxedos and having to relive the nightmare of a formal wedding with a wedding planner. 

what’s yours is mine

We have a big birthday coming up. Not so much huge step up the hill, but it’s markedly different than H’s last birthday, as now he has a sister who possesses an awareness of toys and receiving gifts. Last year she was barely crawling. Yikes! How a year goes so quickly… 

So between the birthday and Christmas coming about, it made me do some thinking about how we approach ownership in our home. Up to this point, neither kids really “possess” anything of their own. H regularly rides M’s pink and purple tricycle (much to his father’s chagrin), since she can’t yet and she is clueless about it. All toys remain in their respective homes – the first to begin play gets the first round. If both show interest and a fight erupts, the second on the scene must wait their turn and find a different toy in the meantime. Honestly, even food and drink are experienced in this fashion. Milk cups and ham slices are to be passed around. (However, don’t think me more thoughtful than you ought; this approach was conceived mostly out of laziness.)
But soon and very soon H will unwrap a series of gifts to be “his.” I’m not sure what to think about this. I’m kinda digging our communal living approach. I’ll go so far as to say it’s biblical. In actuality, we own nothing – it’s been given to us as a blessing to steward and care for, and can be taken away just as easily. Now now, I hear you say in your head, “what I purchase with the money I earned is mine.” And while I’ll grant a little latitude, I’ll simply ask the source of your gifts and abilities that make work possible. What if you were gored by an ox or fell  in a deep fryer and the brain, arms, legs or mouth that you use to make a living is no longer at your disposal? I say, my friends, even the ability to work hard for a paycheck is a gift not to be overlooked. 
So I like that currently my children own nothing. In the house which they live there are boxes and shelves of toys which they are welcome to play with, but they must take care of them and return them to their rightful places at the end of the day. And these same toys will be played with by siblings alike. I’m hoping this approach places the idea of stewardship into more than just what numbers we put in a plate on Sunday. 
However. I have doubt. Oh, yes, there’s always doubt in this little brain, and this time I’m going to share it aloud. Will an ownership-free childhood deprive them of what it means to give? How does the concept of having something and choosing to give it away fit into the idea that it wasn’t theirs to begin with? Is it strengthened or weakened? And will they value something less if it’s not “theirs”? Will they take advantage of and be careless with the things that they feel no direct ownership of? 
And hear me clearly: we have too many grandparents in the mix for me to feel as if we’ll escape 18 years without hearing “It’s my _____!” Birthdays and Christmases are fast approaching where each will unwrap his/her own and then suddenly feel as if said toy needs to be protected  from siblings. (Which, I’m sure, will lead to comparison, and we’re sure to hear “it’s not fair! I want one of those”). 
But surely there has to be a way. There has to be. I know I’m not to the first to wrestle with this. I don’t want to mindlessly accept the current models of consumerism and materialism. However, as others (and we as parents) choose to bless my children, I want them to experience it to the nth degree. As someone who loves to give good gifts, I don’t want to deprive anyone of that right. It’s a good and joyful thing to have excited gift givers in your life. And I want them to experience those who are giving so that they see it modeled and become generous people. Getting rid of giving gifts is not a solution or a goal. 
A healthy understanding of ownership, or stewardship, is the aim. But, as in so many things: what does that look like? Especially on Christmas morning. 

in three words

I think you can change the world, one life at a time, with three words.

I love you.
Yeah, me too.
I don’t know.
Can I help?
I’m sorry, too.
Are you sure?
God loves you. 
What are the three words you need to hear today?
« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Michele Minehart

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑