Mark Henkel Truth about Biblical Marriage to Rick Warran

1. FAMOUS POLYGAMIST’S NAME IN HISTORIC INAUGURATION PRAYER

At the historic Inauguration of the United States’ first African American President, Barack Obama, of January 20, 2009, renowned Pastor Rick Warren offered the official opening prayer. At the very start of the prayer, Warren began, “Let us pray. Almighty God, our Father, everything we see and everything we can’t see exists because of you alone. It all comes from you. It all belongs to you. It all exists for your glory. History is your story. The scripture tells us, Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is One. And you are the compassionate and merciful one, and you are loving to everyone you have made.”

By therewith identifying the name of Israel before all the world watching this historic inauguration, Warren openly vocalized the name of one of the most famous polygamists throughout all of history. Indeed, all “12 Tribes of Israel” were born of the four wives of Jacob, whom God re-named as Israel. Clearly, the namesake progenitor of the people of Israel was a God-blessed polygamist - against whom no verse in the Bible reproved or corrected for such polygamy. Even Jesus Christ is reported by the Bible in Matthew 8:11 as saying that that same polygamist would be seen in Heaven.

However, Pastor Warren has also publicly declared that he believes that polygamy is a definition of marriage that he would oppose. Yet, the Bible he believes in proves that anti-polygamy is very much anti-Israel. By his making such a declaration, Warren’s assertion unwittingly “opposes” the progenitor of the very same Israel he named in his Inaugural prayer.

And with that anti-biblical opposition, Pastor Warren has thereby succumbed to the temptation of what Christians understand as idolatry. Although reminding all the world of the one true God and the polygamist name of Israel in the Inaugural prayer, Warren has otherwise allowed himself to turn to the false god of big socialist government for anti-Israel marriage control.

2. PASTOR RICK WARREN

Pastor Rick Warren is a noted, quite kindhearted, evangelical Christian author of a best-selling self-help book, “The Purpose Driven Life.” He is also the beloved pastor of Saddleback Church - a 23,000-member evangelical mega-church in Lake Forest, California.

On August 16, 2008, Warren hosted a public religious forum for both Presidential candidates, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, to discuss social issues – most notably, what evangelicals view as pre-natal infanticide (abortion) and the biological impossibility of “same sex marriage.” Even though Warren clearly does not support the hyper-liberal positions of the Democrat, he defended his decision to invite both sides, saying that he believed that Barack Obama should be offered the opportunity to present such views too.

Along with other media, Time magazine has hailed Rick Warren as “unquestionably the U.S.'s most influential and highest-profile churchman.” Many people and pundits believe that Rick Warren could be the “new Billy Graham” to Presidents and all America, for this generation.

After the election, President Elect Obama returned the favor to the evangelical pastor on December 17, 2008, publicly declaring that Warren would be the clergyman to offer the opening prayer at the Presidential Inauguration. That announcement sparked outrage by homosexuals and their liberal supporters. After all, Rick Warren had been a visible advocate for the November 7, 2008, referendum-passage of a big government marriage control amendment to California’s state constitution. The amendment codified the actually-unbiblical re-definition of marriage as only being defined as “a man and a woman.”

President-Elect Obama responded to the controversy of his selection. Echoing Warren’s same defense from the August, 2008, forum, Obama said that he had selected Rick Warren to show everyone that Obama is committed to listening to others who have different views – even if they do not align with Obama’s own hyper-liberal views.

3. NBC’s DATELINE

NBC-TV responded immediately by promoting its pending “Dateline” show of December 19, 2008: Rick Warren had given an interview to NBC’s Ann Curry.

Discussing the November, 2008, referendum-passage of California’s big government marriage control amendment, Curry suggested that Warren’s opposition to what evangelicals view as the biological impossibility of “same sex marriage” was hurtful to homosexuals who “only want to start their own family” and adopt. She interrogatively declared, “There is this specter of pain that your position will undoubtedly cause, and I wonder how you reconcile that.”

In NBC’s online promo, Rick Warren offered his un-edited, complete response, “For 5,000 years, every single culture, every single religion, has defined marriage as a man and a woman. Not just Christianity - Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism. Every single religion, and every single culture, has defined marriage between a man and a woman. Why take that word? I mean, I even have gay friends, like Al Rantel at KABC, who is opposed to using the word, ‘marriage,’ for gay relation. Use another term. I am opposed to marriage being used for a relationship between a sister and a brother. I would oppose that. I would oppose the term, marriage, being used for an older man and a baby girl. I would oppose that. I would be opposed for the word, marriage, being used for one man and six wives - or one wife and six husbands. I think - God says, it's not my issue - God said in Genesis 1, a man and a woman shall cling to each other for life.”

Warren was semantically correct in noting that marriage has historically always been defined as occurring with opposite genders. Conservatives note that the anatomical impossibility for homosexuals to share coitus is the biological reason why the modern construct of “same sex marriage” has been definitively excluded from the definition of marriage throughout history. So, while it is semantically true that marriage has been universally defined as occurring between a man and a woman, it is not true that such semantics thereby excluded polygamy. Polygynous marriage is indeed “a man and a woman” - in each of the man’s individual marriages with each wife. And, although occurring far less frequently in history, polyandrous marriage meets the definition in the same way - but in reverse.

Aside from the semantics, and notwithstanding the pastor’s focus on “gay marriage,” Rick Warren’s statement is simply untrue regarding polygamy. Many cultures, religions, and the Bible have always included polygamy within the definition of marriage.

4. CULTURES DO INCLUDE POLYGAMY

Pastor Warren’s statement was definitely incorrect about “every single culture” and polygamy.

Many indigenous cultures around the world have included forms of polygamy in their marriage definition - including South American, Indonesian (Melanesian), and African tribal polygamous cultures, even today.

Over the last three years, one particular TV series, called “Tribal Odyssey,” has demonstrated a number of such examples. The series has appeared on such television networks as National Geographic, Discovery, and most recently (on December 28, 2008), the Travel Channel.

As that documentary series shows, the Zoe tribe (on the Amazon, in Brazil), the Wolani tribe (in West Papua, in Melanesia), and the Himba tribe (in Namibia, in West Africa) all continue the ancestral traditions of their own unique cultures. Such tribes obviously do not define marriage “by government.” More importantly, as these televised episodes prove, the definition of marriage in these indigenous cultures very clearly does include polygamy. Even though many people may perceive such cultures as “un-civilized” by modern standards, one cannot deny that such cultures do exist.

Because they do exist, then one cannot exclude them in a statement about “every single culture.” Therefore, Warren’s statement was simply incorrect. “Every single culture” for the past 5,000 years - and even still, today - has most definitely not excluded polygamy in its definition of marriage.

5. RELIGIONS DO INCLUDE POLYGAMY - CHRISTIANITY

Moreover, each of the religions he mentioned also prove that Rick Warren’s statement was incorrect about “every single religion” and polygamy.

Polygamy was not ever banned by original Christianity. The “ban” was invented a few centuries after Christ when Christianity became utterly transformed. No longer being the original persecuted faith of the humble disciples and martyrs, it metamorphosed into the dominating political powerhouse of the Catholic institution. Subsequently, Catholicism subtly found ways to integrate some of the false god theologies and doctrines of the Romans.

Leaning upon Catholicism’s newly-developing and inventive notions of anti-sexual asceticism (out of which priests and nuns were ordered to unbiblically never marry), Catholic popes re-defined marriage for their religion with their new anti-biblical invention of the “one man, one woman” dogma. Depriving the masses access to read the Scriptures for themselves at that time, they mis-directed the translated-from-Greek-text meaning of 1 Timothy 3:2,12 and Titus 1:6 to imply that those Scriptural instructions given only for bishops, elders, and deacons to be the husband of their “first wife” (i.e., to not be divorced) somehow means that supposedly every married man may only be the husband of “one wife.” As the mammoth Catholic institution acquired dominating control over most Western governments, it used those subordinated governments to coerce others to embrace its manmade doctrines.

Almost a thousand years after Catholicism’s “one man, one woman” doctrinal changes, the Protestant Reformation (“protesting” Catholicism’s manmade doctrines) corrected and brought Christianity to “sola scriptura” (only Scripture) as the only valid standard for genuine doctrine. The Reformation also planted the seeds of what would become Americanism with the U.S. Constitutionalism of disallowing a religion like the Catholic powerhouse to control government.

Some early reformers acknowledged that the Bible never forbade polygyny. “Martin Luther at one time accepted polygamy as a practical necessity,” noted Jonathan Turley, renowned Constitutional law professor, in a USA Today op-ed. However, the early reformers did not fully complete that Reformation. Instead, most Protestants simply continued the unwittingly inherited but non-scriptural Catholic invention of “one man, one woman” dogma. Since the 1990s, though, a recognized movement of evangelicals from all Christian denominations has emerged, called, Christian Polygamy. Based on the Bible and an established “love-not-force” standard for un-coerced consenting-adults, these modern Bible-based reformers are specifically “Continuing the Reformation” – the actual slogan of the TruthBearer.org organization for Christian Polygamy.

6. RELIGIONS DO INCLUDE POLYGAMY – JUDAISM, ISLAM, HINDUISM, BUDDHISM

Judaism (the forebear of Christianity, as Christ was Jewish) is the religion of the descendants of Israel – the previously-mentioned famous polygamist whose four wives bore the “12 Tribes of Israel.” The Jewish sacred text, the Torah, was written by polygamist Moses (who had two wives himself) – and it includes polygamy regulations in such verses that Christians know as Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15. The “one man, one woman” invention insultingly asserts that all the Jews are “illegitimate” descendents (i.e., technically calling them, “bastards”) of supposedly “unmarried” parents - thereby proving that anti-polygamy is definitively anti-Israel. Judaism did not even consider embracing “one man, one woman” dogma until about the year 1000 when a Talmudist teacher, Rabbeinu Gershom, made it the new standard for Jewish marriages. Yet, not all Jewish groups accepted the new prohibition, either. That rabbi’s acquiescence was yet another example of the Catholic institution’s political power to control even people outside its religion – to the mind-controlling point of such another religion actually denying the marriages of its very own polygamist progenitor, Israel. Even so, as Professor Turley also pointed out, “Polygamy is still present among Jews in Israel, Yemen and the Mediterranean.” And some of them are also in the United States, as a John Stossel Special Report on ABC-TV’s show, “20/20,” showed in an interview with a Jewish polygamous family from the Chicago area.

Islam was founded around the year 600 by its religion’s polygamist “prophet,” Mohammad. The Muslim sacred text, the Qur’an, includes Verse 4:3 which specifically limits regular Muslim men to marrying no more than four wives. The “prophet” Mohammad himself, however, married many more than that limit, with his many wives known by Muslims as the “Mothers of the believers.” Any Muslim who rejects polygamy rejects the Islamic religion itself and its founding polygamist “prophet.”

In Hinduism, the Baudhayana Dharmashastra (in Prasna I, Adhyaya 8, Kandika 16, verses 1-8) details how many wives a man in each of the four castes (societal classes) may marry. A man in the first caste may marry four wives, the second caste is allowed three, the third caste is allowed two, and the fourth caste is allowed one wife.

Buddhism has no sanction for or against polygamy. It is allowed where local traditions embrace polygamy. Tibetan Buddhists are even known as one of the few peoples on the planet whereat the reverse of polygyny - that is, cultural polyandry – occurs: one wife with more than one husband. Encyclopedia Britannica explains that - although it is not common - that polyandrous kind of “polygamy was practiced on a limited scale” in Tibet.

7. RELIGIONS DO INCLUDE POLYGAMY - MORMONISM

Before concluding this point about religions, there is also one other well-known religion that embraced polygamy, which Warren did not mention: Mormonism. That new religion, begun in the early 1800s, has always been opposed by evangelical Christianity.

Founded by the religion’s “prophet,” Joseph Smith, who reportedly discovered the “Book of Mormon,” his newly-created religion of Mormonism eventually developed specific doctrines that religiously obligate women to a “duty” of polygamy - from their Doctrine & Covenants chapter 132 to the official Discourses from Smith’s successor super-polygamist “prophet,” Brigham Young. As the new religion grew, Americans were unwittingly misled into thinking that all forms of polygamy are supposedly based on that one, very young religion’s doctrines. It was Mormonism’s visibly “obligatory” doctrines upon women that led to the original anti-polygamy laws - effectively “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” regarding un-criminalized polygamy for any non-obligated, un-coerced consenting adults who equally oppose such “obligatory” doctrines of Mormonism.

By 1890, the leadership of what would eventually be seen as the so-called “mainstream” Latter Day Saints (LDS) responded to such anti-polygamy laws by mandating the Catholic coerced dogma of “one man, one woman” for its own religion too. However, doctrinally “obligatory” polygamy had been too deeply connected to the core purpose of the entire religion itself. Many dedicated fundamentalist adherents, therefore, viewed that anti-polygamy change as heretical apostasy. In the same way that Protestants rejected the heresy of Catholicism and its invention of doctrines that contradict the Christian religion, many dedicated Mormons left the heresy of “mainstream” Mormonism and its inventions of doctrines that contradict the Mormon religion. Leaving the “mainstream” LDS, they became known as Fundamentalist Latter Days Saints (FLDS), subsequently and repeatedly subdividing into various mini-sects ever since.

For anyone who intellectually investigates the religious ideas and purposes of the overall Mormon religion, even when the investigator personally rejects the religion, the religion’s principles make it evident that the Fundamentalist Mormons really are the “true Mormons.” With Mormonism’s seemingly imaginative doctrines of “pre-existence of souls,” “priesthood keys,” and a biological multi-level marketing plan with children unto becoming gods and building new universes, Mormonism without Mormon Polygamy is like Christianity without Christ. It is intellectually impossible.

Ironically, it was the modern “mainstream” Mormons who were among the most vocal in California, alongside Pastor Rick Warren, in supporting that State’s big government marriage control amendment in November, 2008. Yet, Warren’s statement was surprisingly silent about Mormonism in his list of “every single religion” and marriage. Indeed, this “silence” is part of a new, larger pattern for all evangelical marriage controllers. Namely, in public, while opposing their own fellow evangelical Christians who support Biblical polygamy, evangelical marriage controllers will welcome and even praise the “mainstream” Mormons for now supporting the Catholic “one man, one woman” invention. Yet, behind the four walls of almost every evangelical church, those same Christians will always privately say that numerous Mormon doctrines make that religion a “cult.” Whether or not Rick Warren has verbalized such words privately in his own church may not be publicly known. Even so, the “audible” silence about Mormonism in his declared list of “every single religion” regarding marriage still “deafeningly” indicates the same hypocrisy of the larger pattern – even if unintentionally.

Conclusively, after looking into all of these religions, it is obvious that Pastor Rick Warren’s statement was simply incorrect about “every religion.” Polygamy has most definitely not been excluded in “every single religion” for the past 5,000 years.

8. BIBLE DOES INCLUDE POLYGAMY

And most definitely, Warren’s statement was also wholly incorrect about the Bible and polygamy.

The Genesis 2:24 “one flesh” verse that he mentioned without citation did not – and could not - ban polygamy. (Warren had simply misspoken when he said it was in Genesis 1.) The verse clearly means that a man can be “one flesh” with each of his wives in the same way that 1 Corinthians 6:17 shows Christ being “one spirit” with each of His Christian believers. Moreover, that very same Genesis 2:24 verse was written by polygamist Moses who was “one flesh” with each of his Bible-recorded two wives (Shemitic Zipporah of Exodus 2:21 and the Hamitic Ethiopian woman of Numbers 12:1). No God-inspired author (which Christians believe Moses was) would ever write a doctrine that supposedly condemns his very own family to hell! Such an absurd suggestion is a theological non-sequitur – it’s logically impossible.

In Matthew 19, when Jesus Christ later re-quoted Moses’ “one flesh” verse, Jesus was obviously condemning anti-marriage divorce - not banning pro-marriage polygamy. Indeed, Jesus never condemned Moses (or any Biblical polygamist, for that matter) for his “unrepented” polygamy. Further proving the point, in Matthew 25:1-13, Jesus told a parable in which he metaphorically described Himself as a polygamist coming to marry the “five wise virgins,” i.e., half the churches who are ready for Him. For Christians, a truly sinless Christ could never have told such a story that way if polygamy was a sin, of course.

Then there are all those Biblical heroes who were polygamists. When I (Mark Henkel) appeared on that same aforementioned Special Report with John Stossel on ABC-TV’s “20/20” – labeled on the broadcast as the “National Polygamy Advocate” – I addressed this issue. "If they're saying that [polygamy] is immoral, they're calling the greatest heroes in the Bible - which they believe in - they're calling them immoral. They're saying that Abraham, with his three wives, was immoral. Jacob [Israel] had four wives. David had seven known, named wives before Bathsheba."

And indeed, Warren’s statement declared his “opposition” to David and that same hero’s marriages – even opposing God Himself. That is, the Bible says in 2 Samuel 12:8 that God told David that He had given David all his wives – and said He would have given him even more. As Pastor Warren most likely knows, the Scriptures also repeatedly say that the Holy Spirit was on David (1 Samuel 16:13 and 2 Samuel 23:2.) Doctrinally, this becomes very dangerous territory for Pastor Warren’s soul. Such a declared opposition to Spirit-filled David’s God-given polygamous family could be recognized as what Jesus called the “never-forgivable” sin of “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,” in Matthew 12:32. Doctrine-wise, that is a grave error which no Christian ever wants to make. Even so, anti-polygamy does present itself to “blaspheme the Holy Ghost” in accusing the Spirit of sin, with regards to polygamy, according to the same Bible that Warren believes.

Once again, Warren’s statement was incorrect about polygamy and the Bible too. (For any other biblical question on this issue, the web-site www.BiblicalPolygamy.com provides every argument of proof as well.)

Regarding Pastor Warren’s statement, the many stories of polygamists in the Scriptures – many occurring less than 5,000 years ago – show that the Bible, itself, absolutely did include polygamy in the definition of marriage.

9. "MORAL LAW" AND GRACE

When NBC finally aired the Warren interview, editors had snipped the promo quote into incomplete, unconnected segments. Moreover, NBC’s online transcript of the broadcast also had significant but subtle changes from that which had actually been shown in the final broadcast. On air and in the transcript, the anti-polygamy reference was - surprisingly - barely mentioned.

In the edited, resultant broadcast, Curry asked how Warren’s use of Biblical law against homosexual behavior could be reconciled with not using the Bible’s food laws. Warren explained, “there are three kind kinds of laws in the Bible that are very different. There's civil law, which is for the nation of Israel. There's ceremonial law, which is for the Jewish priesthood. And there is moral law, which is for everybody. The laws about eating fish and stuff, those are civil and ceremonial laws for Israel. No Christian follows those.”

Warren’s response had simply deferred to standard, evangelical Christianity’s doctrinal understanding of the New Covenant of being “under Grace” (receiving the gift of salvation by Jesus Christ). Therefore, saved by Christ through faith, Christian believers are no longer “under the Law” of the Old Testament.

Rick Warren was differentiating that “being under Grace” means that Christians are only bound to the Old Testament’s “moral laws” – “for everybody.” Yet, in using his own definitions there, the same “moral law” of Leviticus 18:22 that prohibits same-sex behavior includes the “moral law” of four verses earlier, Leviticus 18:18. This other verse openly allows and regulates polygamy – by only prohibiting a man’s marriage to two sisters at the same time while they are both alive. Such specificity in this other verse in the same chapter would be unnecessary if polygamy was already banned elsewhere by the “moral law” anyway. But there is no such ban of polygamy anywhere throughout the Old or New Testaments. Even if Warren were to then posit that Leviticus 18:18 is a “civil law” (which he said does not apply for Christians), then the fact that that verse absolutely regulated polygamy - and did not acknowledge any “moral law” that prohibits polygamy - still proves that polygamy was never prohibited by any “moral law.” That is, whether one identifies Leviticus 18:18 as a “moral law” or as a “civil law,” it still proves either way that polygamy was not banned by any “moral law.”

Actually, as noted previously herein, other verses additionally allow and regulate polygamy in the Old Testament. Exodus 21:10 begins with the clause, “If he take him another wife.” And Deuteronomy 21:15 begins with the clause, “If a man have two wives.” Whether one views those as “moral laws” or “civil laws,” the existence of those verses while “under the Law” further proves that polygamy did not violate any “moral law.” Polygamy was definitely allowed - so much so that it was regulated, even “under the Law.”

So, Warren’s anti-polygamy responses would actually make marriage doctrine in the New Covenant to be more legalistically restrictive (i.e., what Christians would call, being “Law-based”) in these current times of “being under Grace” than marriage doctrine had ever been during the more rigid times of “being under the Law.” (It is additionally ironic that most Christian marriage controllers who claim to be “under Grace” and no longer “under the Law” would then hypocritically do the opposite, as they turn to the false god of big socialist government to make more human law to more legalistically restrict what consenting adults do for marriage than had ever happened in the Bible.)

Back in the 1990s, I (Mark Henkel) defined this particular anti-polygamy unbiblical dichotomy as “The Grace-Law Hypocrisy.” Namely, anti-polygamists frequently assert a rather-insulting falsehood that suggests that pro-polygamists who believe the Bible are supposedly “Old Testament based” – thereby deceptively trying to subtly discredit Christian pro-polygamists as supposedly “not being under Grace” (i.e., ”not Christian”). Clearly, as proven by this “Grace-Law Hypocrisy,” that assertion has it backwards. Anti-polygamists are the ones being less “under Grace” because they are the ones who are choosing to be more legalistically restrictive on marriage doctrine than even “the Law” had ever been regarding polygamy. In contrast, most non-Mormon, Christian-based polygamists, specifically, are indeed evangelical “New Testament based” Christians “under Grace” of New Covenant Christianity. Further proving this fact, after I had given an in-depth interview with Pat Robertson’s “700 Club” Christian news network a few years ago, their televised report accurately acknowledged Christian Polygamists specifically by the term, “evangelical Christians.”

Ultimately, this all reveals that Pastor Rick Warren’s explanation about “moral laws” actually supports polygamy according to the Bible - although he may not have realized it. The Scripture’s “moral laws” (even the “civil laws”) obviously do include the allowance for - via regulation of - polygyny. And the New Testament’s New Covenant of Grace would not make marriage doctrine – or any doctrine - even more legalistically restrictive than the doctrine had ever been under the Old Testament Law.

10. SOLOMON WAS WRONG – BUT NOT FOR POLYGAMY

Ultimately, in the report as it aired, the only outward reference to Warren’s opposition to polygamy was when Curry said, “But the Bible does not say that a marriage is only between a man or a woman, in fact, the Bible says that King Solomon had 700 wives—“ Rick Warren interrupted, saying, “Yeah, well he was wrong too.”

Again, Warren was semantically correct but did not mean it that way. It is true that the Bible shows that Solomon had erred in multiplying so many wives – 1000 (700 wives and 300 concubines). But polygamy was not the issue. The Bible clearly shows that Solomon’s sin there was in the excess hoarding and embracing idolatry – but not polygamy.

Deuteronomy 17:16-17 is what Warren would obviously consider to be an Old Testament “civil law” regulation – an ordinance that simply prohibited any Israelite king (but not talking about everyday Israelite citizens) from multiplying horses and wives to himself. Very clearly, that regulation only prohibited hoarding - i.e., multiplying. Obviously, a prohibition against hoarding does not mean that the ordinance is requiring a limitation of only one.

When Solomon multiplied up to 1,000 wives and concubines, he was undeniably hoarding (multiplying), just as it had been definitely prohibited by this specific Israelite “civil law” for its kings. Such excess hoarding eventually led to idolatry.

When 1 Kings 11:3-4 subsequently reproved Solomon for violating that “civil law” from Deuteronomy, it clearly demonstrated that polygamy was not any part of the sins being identified. Moreover, it directly declared that Solomon’s “heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.” Spirit-filled David had married eight known-named wives, plus ten more women who were not reported by name in the Bible. While there is a difference between multiplying (to 1,000, as Solomon did) versus that of only adding (to 18, as David did), the “civil law” for Israelite kings clearly did not limit their marriages to only one woman. To suggest that that “civil law” for kings supposedly prohibited having more than one wife is to equally absurdly suggest that it also prohibited having more than one horse. Or, to put it in today’s transportation terms, that absurdity suggests that it must also prohibit having more than one car! Such a suggestion is foolishness, indeed.

So, Warren’s interruptive statement was clearly incorrect to imply that Solomon’s sin of hoarding (multiplying) wives supposedly meant that “Solomon was wrong” for marrying more than one wife. Yes, Solomon “was wrong” for violating the “civil law.” He was, indeed, wrong for hoarding and allowing idolatry. But, undoubtedly, polygamy was neither any sin nor any error in the matter.

11. JEROBOAM THE SON OF NEBAT

It would also appear to be more than ironic co-incidence that the Biblical Solomon ended up being Rick Warren’s only anti-polygamy reference in the on-air broadcast. Upon further reading of the very same story, the Bible shows God’s response to those specific sins of Solomon’s idolatry and violating the “civil law.”

After Solomon’s death, the kingdom of Israel was divided in two. His heir, Rehoboam, would rule from Jerusalem over only two tribes, while another man would rule over the other ten tribes. Rehoboam was then identified as king of Judah while Jeroboam the son of Nebat was identified as king of Israel. As a political hedge, in order to prevent people from the northern ten tribes from travelling to Jerusalem (i.e., into Rehoboam’s Judah) for their religious sacrifices and holy days required by the “ceremonial law,” Jeroboam instead created false gods, altars, and holy days for the people of Israel. Hence, Jeroboam the son of Nebat politically led God’s people in the northern tribes into the sin of idolatry.

Over successive kingdoms thereafter, the Bible identified the future kings as either good or as one who committed the “sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.” This specific comparison was frequently used throughout the forthcoming chronology of Israel’s kings. For example, in just the one chapter of 2 Kings 15 alone, four different kings were called out by it.

Hence, serious Bible students recognize the phrase, “gone the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat,” as identifying any leader of God’s people who politically misleads them into idolatry with false gods.

For that reason, any would-be Christian leader who calls for people to embrace the idolatry of demanding that the false god of big socialist government re-define and control God’s doctrines can be undeniably identified by that phrase as well. Tyrannical notions of government gospel, government baptism, government Lord’s table, and government marriage are doctrines that God never once needed nor ever justified.

Marriage controllers oppose homosexuals using law to re-define marriage with what the evangelical Christian viewpoint sees the “moral law” calling a sin. But the “solution” is not to use the sin of idolatry to re-define marriage with a Catholic invented doctrine either. Sin versus sin is still sin, as far as actual evangelical Christianity is concerned.

Indeed, to currently allow the false god of big socialist government to re-define God’s doctrine of marriage one way is to falsely authorize a new majority in the future to also use it to re-define marriage another way. God forbid. Ultimately, in the Bible, God never needed the false god of big socialist government for anything, never mind to re-define doctrine.

So, when Pastor Rick Warren (repeating other would-be Christian leaders) encourages Christians to embrace big government marriage control amendments, he is indeed going the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, misleading Christians into idolatry instead of turning to the one true God in Whom he says he believes. This uncomfortable fact is true, even if he sincerely did not realize it.

12. RE-DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE?

In an edited snip of the on-air broadcast, Warren shared his sincere reasoning for supporting marriage control. Near the beginning of the broadcast, Warren explained, “I am opposed to the redefinition of marriage. First place, to me, it was a free speech issue.” And later, he re-iterated, “I'm in favor of human rights for everybody. Everybody. I'm against re-defining marriage, historically. 5,000 years, because then it'll be re-defined.”

As this essay has demonstrated, not only is that statement incorrect about the historical and biblical definition of marriage as somehow excluding polygamy, but it is also incorrect to imply that marriage has not already been re-defined by big government. Indeed, anti-polygamists have actually already used the false god of big socialist government to re-define marriage with the Catholic-invented “one man, one woman” dogma – a re-definition which Warren appears to already support.

Pro-polygamists can be encouraged that Pastor Rick Warren cares about human rights – especially considering that polygamists actually have very few rights at all, even being denied “legal standing” with which to file slander and libel lawsuits against specific intentionally dishonest media outlets. Indeed, as for Warren’s genuine concern about “free speech,” past anti-polygamists have even gone so tyrannically far as to create anti-American laws that – to this day - outright deprive polygamists of free speech. In some states, if any married man so much as just refers to any other “girlfriend” as a “wife,” that free speech act itself is a statutory crime – by law. Hence, consenting-adult pro-polygamists pursue being allowed human rights and true freedom from big government tyranny, including having free speech. As Newsweek has directly quoted me (Mark Henkel), “’Polygamy rights’ is the next civil rights battle.”

Aside from issues of free speech and human rights, though, Pastor Warren’s statement revealed his concern about the “danger” of marriage being re-defined. In reality, it is only by allowing the modern idea of “government marriage” in any form that actually originates such “danger.”

The historical fact is that big governmental anti-polygamy is the real slippery slope that led straight to the modern invention of the legal construct of the otherwise biological impossibility of “same sex marriage.” If the false god of big socialist government had never over-stepped its Constitutionally-constrained authority by re-defining marriage in the first place with anti-polygamy, homosexuals would never have had any incentive, justification, or even legal standing with which to pursue the modern invented re-definition today.

Ergo, anti-polygamists were the first ones to re-define marriage. As Rick Warren truly wants to thwart marriage re-definition, then the path to that goal is obvious. Return to the U.S. Constitution’s principles which prohibit big government from making any marriage re-definition whatsoever for consenting-adults – whether the re-definition is for “same sex marriage,” anti-polygamy, or otherwise.

13. MARRIAGE IS A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL

The only valid role for government in marriage is actually at the municipal level as a repository of the public records of the contractual arrangements that consenting adults make. Anything more than that is Marxist-style big government social engineering – for which government has no such authority.

Ultimately, marriage is God-given right of the un-coerced consenting-adult individual. Marriage occurred before the invention of government. It will occur if government ever collapses. No one in the Bible was ever married “by government.” Indeed, the actually-socialist notion of “government marriage” is a very new, modern phenomenon over the whole span of human history. And indeed, the U.S. Constitution’s 10th and 9th Amendments together prove that the federal government has no authority whatsoever to define, license, or control marriage for un-coerced consenting-adults.

For Bible-believing Christians, of course, marriage is very much a God-given doctrine indeed. While Pastor Rick Warren might not yet realize that Biblical marriage absolutely does include consenting-adult polygamy, he clearly does understand the importance of the doctrine to Christians. That is what makes Warren’s and other Christians’ misguided and idolatrous support for big government marriage control so alarming. Christianity-wise, no important doctrines should ever be abominated by the false god of big socialist government.

Would Warren allow the false god of big socialist government to define, license, and control any other important God-defined doctrines? How about a big government gospel defining, licensing, and control amendment? How about a baptism control amendment? Would he support a Lord’s table control amendment? Even if such control amendments were deceptively disguised with such dishonest titles as so-called “protection amendments,” would such intended-deception conceal the fact that they are really about forcefully giving up power to the false god of big socialist government to control individuals and to control God’s doctrines? Most likely, he would say, “No.”

Realizing this context, marriage control truly betrays Pastor Warren’s genuine values and Christian faith. Government really has no Constitutional authority to be re-defining, licensing, and controlling Christian doctrines – whether it’s the gospel, baptism, the Lord’s table, or marriage. Consenting-adult marriage is a God-given right of the Individual, well beyond the authority of government to control.

14. THE POLYGAMY RIGHTS WIN-WIN SOLUTION

So how can the real definition of marriage be protected without committing the idolatry of big government marriage control?

No one has a right to re-define marriage – including homosexuals. Even so, however, homosexuals do have a right to their own imaginations, just as much as anti-polygamists do. Indeed, everyone has an individual right to an imagination, even if others neither support nor agree with that imagination.

Yet, at the same time, no one has the right to use the false god of big socialist government to force their own imaginations upon others, either. Those who imagine what conservatives view as the biological impossibility of “same sex marriage” do not have the right to use big government to re-define marriage according to their imaginations. But neither do anti-polygamists have any right to use it to force their unbiblical, Catholic-invented imaginations of “one man, one woman” forced-exclusivity dogma, ether.

When the beast of big government is de-fanged from the tyranny of enforcing any re-definition of marriage for consenting-adults, then it does not matter whether one side disagrees with the imaginations or beliefs of another. It then would not matter to homosexuals if Christians do not support what homosexuals imagine. And it also would not matter to evangelicals if homosexuals do not support what Christians believe either.

Thereby, everyone is free, whether they imagine or choose “one man, one woman,” “same sex marriage,” or consenting-adult polygamy. The jackboot and shackles of the false god of big socialist government’s tyranny is thus removed from all individuals everywhere. The churches remain free to preach according to the Bible and their own consciences. And marriage can never be re-defined by anyone ever again.

This argument has long been known as what I’ve labeled, “the Polygamy Rights WIN-WIN solution” to end the marriage debate. With this solution, everyone politically wins and is able to “save face.” Conservatives get their limited government values back. Liberals get their “equality for all” beliefs. And all Americans will be thankful that the tiresome marriage debate had finally come to an end.

15. "FORBIDDING TO MARRY”

Embracing this limited government, anti-idolatrous solution is the most direct and honest means by which Pastor Rick Warren (and any other leading Christian-based marriage controller) may easily “depart from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat.” Doing so would indeed work to truly protect marriage from being re-defined, while equally helping him steer clear from the sin of leading God’s people into idolatry.

For Christians, the Bible even provides further proof for being motivated to reject marriage control and to accept this WIN-WIN solution. Indeed, the Bible itself speaks directly about marriage control as “doctrines of devils!” In 1 Timothy 4:1-3a, the Scripture can even be seen as “the Holy Spirit foretelling” of this modern day situation, wherein even misguided Christian believers embrace utter hypocrisy and lies in order to idolatrously forbid marriage.

As it is written,

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly,
that in the latter times
some shall depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits,
and doctrines of devils;
speaking lies in hypocrisy;
having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
forbidding to marry…”

The words of that New Testament “prophecy” jump off the page for any Bible-student looking for any Biblical indication about the current political marriage debate.

In turning to the false god of big socialist government for marriage control, Rick Warren has unwittingly embraced the undeniable lies and hypocrisy of forbidding the marriages of all the Biblical polygamists. He would even forbid God who described Himself as polygamously married in Jeremiah 3 and Ezekiel 23. For these holy examples in the Bible, today’s marriage control is a “doctrine of devils,” an obvious lie, hypocritically “forbidding to marry” indeed.

Most likely, the genuinely kindhearted Pastor Rick Warren, who sincerely hopes to stand positively in his accountability before God, will want to reject such “Spirit-foretold” idolatry indeed, that he would indeed stop “forbidding to marry” and just “depart from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.” In sharing the facts of the matter herein for his benefit, this essay may possibly aid the pastor (and other misguided marriage controllers) toward that end.

The very same passage there in 1 Timothy 4 later states in verse 6, “If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.” Evangelical Christian polygamists (specifically), in continuing the Reformation, would all hope that this essay could indeed be a persuasive blessing for Pastor Rick Warren and for all marriage controllers – as that verse’s affirmation defines this essay’s sincere intent.

For Rick Warren and all evangelical marriage controllers, the Bible provides unambiguous incentive to rapidly turn away from the idolatry of “forbidding to marry.”

16. FREEDOM FOR ALL

Once government is finally disallowed from “forbidding to marry” and re-defining marriage, then government will be perpetually disallowed from oppressing anyone regarding marriage ever again. For Christian churches, for homosexuals, for consenting-adult polygamists, for everyone, therein is real freedom and justice for all indeed.

Every American from any religious belief or imagination about marriage will rejoice: the exhausting big government marriage “fight” will have finally concluded! Therewith, former evangelical marriage controllers will have uncompromisingly blessed everyone with a genuinely Christian testimony.

Such a blessing for all will live up to the prayer from Rick Warren, himself, who truly said it best at President Barack Obama’s Inauguration, wherein the pastor declared the name of the famous polygamist Israel worldwide.

Just before bringing the opening prayer to a close by reciting the Biblically-given Lord’s Prayer, Pastor Rick Warren prayed to God, “Help us to remember that we are Americans united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all.

“When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget You - forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone - forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve - forgive us. And as we face these difficult days ahead may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes - even when we differ.

“Help us to share, to serve, and to seek the common good of all. May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day all nations and all people will stand accountable before You.”