Christian Civic League - Polygamy in the Media

OUTLINE (of this web-page)

Portland Press Herald article
Mark Henkel answers "Anti-Polygamy" assertion
Michael Heath posts to CCL web-site
Polygamy Rights are NOT "sexual orientation" issues
The two portions of Mr. Heath's "Email"
Final Encouragements

Portland Press Herald article

In the December 15, 2006 edition of their newspaper, the Portland Press Herald reported about Mark Henkel, the founder of the TruthBearer.org organization. The report included an "anti-polygamy" statement from the Christian Civic League in Maine.

The relevant portion of the aticle, which pertains to the Christian Civic League, reported the following about Mr. Henkel (with bold emphasis added herein):

"Polygamy rights is the next civil rights battle," he said. "That's how significant this thing is."

Henkel maintains there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits polygamy. He cites numerous examples, from Abraham to Moses, to support it.

Much of his Web site, with chapters such as "Breaking Past the One Wife Barrier," is devoted to a detailed parsing of Scripture to show that it does not conflict with polygamy.

Many Christians might agree with Michael Heath of the Christian Civic League of Maine, who offered a different reading of the Bible.

Heath said Henkel's position amounts to "arguing for sin."

Henkel said he is more than willing to engage in a biblical debate...

Although Mr. Henkel, in the interviews with the reporter, Seth Harkness, had offered numerous citations showing the acceptability of polygamy in the Bible, the reporter reduced it down to using only the two examples of Abraham and Moses. Such reduction for brevity-sake is standard journalism; it is to be expected. And the reporter clearly demonstrated that those cited examples were merely two examples of citations among numerous possible listings provided by Mr. Henkel.

Mark Henkel answers "Anti-Polygamy" assertion

Writer, Seth Harkness, had initially interviewed Mr. Henkel on November 29, 2006, receiving numerous examples and arguments proving polyamy in the Bible. Two weeks later, on the day before the article was published, he spoke again with Mr. Henkel for a final follow-up interview (with another quick one even after that, later in the same day). In the first follow-up interview that day, Mr. Harkness said that he had since spoken with the Christian Civic League, asking them what they thought of the arguments that Mr. Henkel was making. Mr. Harkness said that their response was, "There is no example of polygamy in the New Testament."

The reporter then posed the question of that would-be "anti-polygamy" statement to Mr. Henkel. It was easily answered.

First, Mr. Henkel noted how it is a common tactic of some anti-polygamists to try to suggest that Christian Polygamy is somehow an exclusively "Old Testament" idea - an ironic act of unwitting hypocrisy, considering that most anti-polygamists self-justify their anti-polygamy doctrine from a mis-application of the very first chapters of the Old Testament - the story of Adam and Eve. One cannot get any more "Old Testament" than that story. Mr. Henkel emphatically explained that Christian Polygamy is pure standard New Covenant Christian theology. The movement is not about Christians supposedly trying to "go back under the Law." It is New Testament Christianity based on all the Scriptures, the very Word of God.

Second, Mr. Henkel noted that, as the Christian Civic League's response asserts that there is supposedly no example of polygamy in the New Testament, the more obvious fact is that there is no example in the New Testament of polygamy ever being called a sin - nor is there any example of any polygamists of the Bible ever repenting for, being called to repent for, or being condemned for polygamy. If the Christian Civic League is going to use a "no example in the New Testament" idea for a hermeneutic-type of "principle," then, ironically, the very "principle" they use unquestionably proves to them that Christian Polygamy is valid in the New Testament.

Third, Mr. Henkel then provided a detailed example that does show, indeed, that there is an actual example of polygamy in the New Testament. That is, in Matthew 25:1-13, Jesus Christ described Himself as the polygamous Bridegroom coming to marry five of the ten virgins (such virgins being understood theologically - just about universally among most evangelical Christians - as representing the Churches of Jesus Christ). Moreover, because the parable is universally understood as being a forewarning to Christians to be ready (i.e., to be the "five wise virgins") for when Christ (the Bridegroom) comes (in the Second Coming), it is clear that the "five wise virgins" will be with their bridegroom for ever. For that reason, they cannot be perceived as mere "bridesmaids" (as some anti-polygamists foolishly suggest) because bridesmaids would leave when the wedding is over. The "five wise virgins" in the parable have to be understood as actual brides (not "bridesmaids") who will be with the husband for ever, the ready (and God-defined righteous) Churches to be with Christ for ever. Although the parable is not about a literal marriage to literal women, the fact remains that the perfect and sinless Lord Jesus would never describe Himself in a parable of supposed "sin." So, not only does the parable show an example of polygamy in the New Testament, but that very example comes from the perfect and sinless Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Later that day, when Mr. Harkness called back once more for the last follow-up interview (to ask another question altogether), Mr. Henkel added that he could provide even more rebuttals to the Christian Civic League's mistaken assertion, that he could show more proof of polygamy acknowledged in the New Testament. (The first of the two additional answers was the "father's wife" reference in 1_Corinthians 5:1 - see Point #6, in the Answers / Responses to Mistaken "Anti-Polygamy" Comments section, near the bottom of the webpage about the Journal Tribune report - and also part of it quoted further below on this web-page here. The second of the two additional answers was how 1_Corinthians 7:10-11 & 27-28 show an actual "commandment of the Lord" for one form of polygamy, where a departed wife returns to be reconciled with her re-married husband who, himself, may not divorce the new wife in order to so reconcile with the returning wife - see "Polygamy Commanded of God in NT?".)

However, before Mr. Henkel could provide those two further examples, reporter Seth Harkness noted that he had sufficient information for that issue in the report. Mr. Harkness noted that the newspaper is, of course, a secular newspaper. As such, he declared that it would be sufficient to report that, on the Christian Civic League's side, polygamy is a sin, and on Mr. Henkel's side, there's no prohibition of polygamy in the Bible. Being a secular newspaper, it made sense that the report was not going to go into a detailed parsing of all Scriptures about the matter.

The next day, on December 15, 2006, the Portland Press Herald published that report about Mark Henkel.

Michael Heath posts to CCL web-site

Early that same morning, on the Christian Civic League Of Maine's online forum, their Executive Director, Michael Heath, posted his thoughts about the report. (Michael Heath is a rather well-known public figure in Maine politics, representing certain evangelical Christians throughout the State of Maine. The Portland Press Herald newspaper frequently quotes and reports about both him and the Christian Civic League.)

Mr. Heath's 8:59 AM post was titled, Judge for yourself. In case that web-page ever gets taken down, a backup copy is available here.

The "newsworthiness" of Mr. Harkness's report was that it was about a local Maine man doing something "amazing" on a national and history-changing level - Mark Henkel and his national media-renowned advocacy of Christian Polygamy. According to the forum post at the Maine Christian Civic League's web-site, Mr. Heath did not seem to understand that fact. The posting of the response he had given to the reporter even appeared to be trying to change the discussion into something altogether different from the story's actual focus. Consequently, Mr. Heath - frustrated in his misunderstanding of the report's purpose - labelled Mr. Harkness' report as a "puff piece."

For all readers of this web-page here, Christian kindheartedness requires the sincere acknowledgement that Mr. Heath obviously did not have access to the interviews given by Mr. Henkel to the reporter. So, he was not privy to all the unquestionable proofs of polygamy in the Bible that were given in those interviews. Also, because Mr. Heath most likely has not ever spent all that much time really studying the Scriptures deeply on this issue, he clearly was not in a position of knowledge to be able to understand all that was going on or to even know that his answers offered little to the point of the report.

In his post at the Christian Civic League's web-site, Mr. Heath appeared to feel that his view had not been represented sufficiently. In his post, he copied the email he had sent to Seth Harkness very, very early in the morning on the day before the report was published. (It was on that same day - Thursday, December 14, 2006 - that Mr. Harkness had conducted the final follow-up interviews with Mr. Henkel.) Mr. Heath's email was titled, Some thoughts on the polygamy article you are writing. According to his post, Mr. Heath said he also tried calling the reporter that day too, but he did not hear back again from Mr. Harkness.

If Mr. Heath's posted email sent to Mr. Harkness is any guide, that email's content itself is indicative of the likely reasons why he did not get a reply. That is, instead of addressing any issues about polygamy and the Bible, Mr. Heath's posted email instead even took on the appearance of trying to re-direct and create new issues which either did not apply to or did not have any impact upon the actual discussion about Christians, polygamy, and the Bible.

The first part of Mr. Heath's posted email to Mr. Harkness had nothing to do with Christian Polygamy. Instead, Mr. Heath had copied a lengthy email written by someone else to a writer at the New York Times, about the question of "gay evangelical." The second - and much smaller - part of Mr. Heath's posted email did nothing more than quote a paragraph from an 1885 "liberal activist judge's" opinion in the U.S. Court case, Murphy v. Ramsey, affirming marital socialism and liberally allowing government to re-define marriage with enforced "one man, one woman" big government marriage.

In essence, not only did the posted email reveal that Mr. Heath provided no original answer of his own, but his particular choice of others' comments did not actually contribute anything to the actual discussion for which the reporter had inquired of Mr. Heath. By so doing, Mr. Heath had, unfortunately, been the one himself to set himself up for his subsequent frustration.

But all of us are human beings, and all of us can and do err. Now that such mistakes can be realized, Christian lovingkindness would only warmly encourage Mr. Heath to learn from it and to study the matter much more deeply. Toward that end - and should Mr. Heath, the Christian Civic League, or anyone else ever read this web-page - more clarity and answers to Mr. Heath's posted comments are now provided hereinafter for such deeper understanding. It is shared for the edification of all.

Polygamy Rights are NOT "sexual orientation" issues

In his post, Mr. Heath hedged the posted email's content-inapplicability by self-justifying it with an attempt to re-define Mr. Henkel's nationally renowned sound-bite about polygamy rights. Mr. Heath posted, "Before the detractors jump all over me for bringing up the gay issue in an article about polygamy let me point out that the PPH article begins with the assertion, made by Henkel, that polygamy is the next great civil rights battle. Adding "sexual orientation" to the law in such a way that positive rights are affirmed for immoral sexual behavior is the issue. Gagnon's comments about "gay evangelicals" are therefore relevant in that sense. "

The self-justification is in error for three reasons.

If Mr. Heath is trying to imply an association (which does not apply) between the unbiblical notion of "gay evangelical" and the Bible-legitimate idea of "polygamous evangelical," he has clearly not done his homework (yet, anyway). Mr. Henkel has already been vetted; his Constitutional and Bible-absolute arguments have been undeniably proven as conservative evangelical - and not by "liberal media" either. For example, Mr. Henkel gave an extensive taped interview with Pat Robertson's 700 Club. After hearing all of Henkel's arguments, their subsequent report honestly identified him and Christian Polygamy as "evangelical Christians." Many of the powerful quotes from that interview are reported at the media site, www.Pro-Polygamy.com, titled, "700 Club airs its First Report on Christian Polygamy Movement". Moreover, as even Mr. Harkness' Press Herald article reported, Mr. Henkel refers to the modern invented notion of "same sex marriage" as a "biological impossibility." As such, Mr. Heath's implication that would indirectly suggest that Mark Henkel and Christian Polygamists are supposedly "not evangelical Christians" has already been proven false. Christian Polygamy has already been vetted by known evangelical Christians who actually did their homework and who have thereby honestly acknowledged the truthfulness of the Christian Polygamy movement's "evangelical Christianity."
Polygamy is only about marriage. It is not about "sexual identity" politics. An op-ed from back in 2004, titled, "'Polygamous orientation' Study Amuses Pro-Polygamists," demonstrates that fact. Anyone who thinks that polygamy is about "sexual orientation" is actually only revealing their own lust-minded perceptions of how they view marriage - because polygamy is about marriage, as it always has been. Accordingly, the issue is not about using big government to affirm positive rights for immoral behavior. Not only is polygyny completely moral (as the never-repented-for-polygamy Biblical polygamists were clearly moral), but government has no authority to give or affirm special rights to anyone, whether it be to those who choose homosexual behavior, or to those who choose the Catholic institution's invention of "one man, one woman," or even to Bible-based Christian Polygamists who choose to marry more than one freely-consenting adult wife. The proper Constitutional perspective about liberty is not whether government can "allow" something. Rather, it is about asking whether government itself is allowed to disallow that "something" in the first place. The proper Constitutional role of governmment is only for providing the protection of each Individual's Rights from being infringed, not liberal social engineering. Polygamy rights reveals how government has no authority to be allowed in the first place to be "disallowing" marriages to more than one woman. Not only does the Tenth Amendment prohibit such federal government involvement, but because marriage is both a freedom of assembly/association and a freedom of religous expression, the First Amendment further prohibits government from "disallowing" it too. As such, Mr. Heath's self-justification clearly does not apply to Mr. Henkel's renowned sound-bite, as polygamy is not about "sexual orientation" (aka, "sexual identity") politics.
"Polygamy rights is the next civil rights battle" does not mean what Mr. Heath appears to be trying to to make it mean. Polygamy is marriage, not a behavior. Biblically and anthropologically, polygamy has always been included in the definition of marriage. As such, it is not that polygamists would supposedly "re-define" marriage today. The historically correct truth is that anti-polygamists are the ones who re-defined marriage long ago and then embedded it into the very, very modern notion of the unconstitutional frankenstien-monster called "government marriage." Today's pro-polygamists are the historically-true anti-re-definers when it comes to marriage, actually. Indeed, to re-define marriage to exclude polygamy from the definition of marriage - when it always has been in the definition of real marriage - means declaring that all the great and mighty heroes of the Bible with more than one wife were supposed fornicators. (God forbid.) Such anti-polygamy is even anti-Israel. Turning to the false god of big socialist government to liberally re-define marriage shows that such big government anti-polygamy is even idolatry. The fact is, marriage pre-dates the invention of government. Marriage existed before big government was invented and it will exist even if government collapses in the future. Not one person in the Bible was ever "married by government." Marriage is an Individual Right, not subject to the whimsy of any government, "liberal activist judge" or court, or collective majority to liberally re-define. Because marriage is not in the Constitution (neither should so important a doctrine ever be), the federal government has no authority to be involved - the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal govenment from being involved in marriage. Moreover, every "conservative" should always remember: any big government that is "liberally" authorized to re-define marriage to exclude polygamy is equally "liberally" authorized to re-define marriage to include the "biological impossibility of same sex marriage." As such, Anti-Polygamy is the Real 'Slippery Slope' that led to the modern invention of so-called "same sex marriage" as a legal construct in the first place. If government had never been involved in re-defining marriage or being involved in the first place, then the invention of the legal notion of the "biological impossibility of same sex marriage" would never have been invented. Because of all this, the meaning of Mr. Henkel's renowned "polygamy rights" sound-bite has been repeatedly explained in numerous media interviews - it is a "win-win" method by which to finally end the marriage debate altogether. The way to protect the churches from being coercively forced to "perform weddings" of the "biological impossibility of same sex marriage" is to get government out of it altogether. While homosexuals have the freedom of speech right to imagine any fiction, they do not have the right to force their imaginings on Christians or others, especially through big government. While there must be no special rights for homosexual behavior choosing individuals, it is equally true that there must also be "'No Special Rights' for those who Choose 'One Man, One Woman'" either. Conservatives can perceive a "win" from this polygamy rights solution in getting back to true limited government values. (Just as no evangelical Christian would support the idolatrous ideas of either a "Gospel Limitation and Licensing Control Amendment" or a "Baptism Limitation and Licensing Control Amendment," the equally vile idea of a "Marriage Limitation and Licensing Control Amendment" is just as anti-constitutional, anti-conservative, and anti-Christian a concept.) Thereby, limited government would be treated with great reverence again and conservatives would rejoice about that. At the same time, homosexuals and their liberal supporters would also perceive a "win" from the polygamy rights solution. They would see it as providing "equality" of no special rights for anybody. - not for those who choose the "biological impossibility of same marriage" nor for those who choose "one man, one woman," nor for consenting-adult polygamists. Clearly, therefore, the "polygamy rights" sound-bite is about offering a solution that can finally end the marriage debate once and for all. As such, Mr. Heath's self-justification did not apply to what Mr. Henkel's "polygamy rights" sound-bite ever meant.

The two portions of Mr. Heath's "Email"

As well, the overall reading of Mr. Heath's posted email unwittingly contains thoughts within it which actually could be extracted to support the pro-polygamy position.

Interestingly, in the first portion of the posted email, in which Mr. Heath copied the text of another email sent by someone named Robert Gagnon, the arguments used by that other writer unwittingly involved pro-polygamy exegetical proofs!

A. The 1_Corinthians 5:1 reference to "father's wife" is a specific term in the Bible. It does not refer simply to "step-mother," but instead it actually refers to any of the other wives of one's father who is not their own mother. The following snippet comes from: Point #6, in the Answers / Responses to Mistaken "Anti-Polygamy" Comments section, near the bottom of the webpage about the Journal Tribune report. After prohibiting incest with one's father or mother in Leviticus 18:7, the next verse prohibits incest with one's "father's wife" - obviously showing that the father is an obviously-allowed polygamist, and his offspring may not commit incest with any of that polygamous father's wives. This "father's wife" separation from the identification of one's mother is expressly stated a number of other times too (Leviticus 18:8, 20:11, Deuteronomy 22:30, 27:20). In the Old Testament, an example of a man (albeit before "the Law" given later) who was unrightfully "being with" his polygamous "father's wife" is found in 1_Chronicles 5:1 regarding Genesis 35:22. In the New Testament, another example of a man sinfully "being with" his polygamous "father's wife" is found in 1_Corinthians 5:1, 5. Any anti-polygamists who would attempt to obfuscate the "father's wife" reference - as if it supposedly refers exclusively to a re-married widower's "new" wife - are the ones who have the burden of proof to show that such a claimed definition is that exclusive, because there is no such specificity of that limited definition to be found anywhere in the Bible. Moreover, as the aforementioned Old Testament example was about one of the polygamist Israel's four wives being unrightfully "taken" by his firstborn son Reuben, in 1_Chronicles 5:1 regarding Genesis 35:22, it is clear that the "father's wife" reference in the incest-prohibiting passages - and elsewhere - can and does indeed refer to a polygamist father's other wives.

B. The 1_Corinthians chapter 6 reference to "one flesh," and to and each believer being "one spirit" with Christ, also reveals the plural-to-one pro-polygamy proof. This proof is in addition to the fact that the mortal writer who actually authored the original Genesis 2:24 "one flesh" verse was Moses - who had two wives! Obviously, because the term was first coined by him, being the one who wrote it, Moses certainly knew what "one flesh" really meant - and so did Jesus Who never once condemned him. The following snippet comes from the following link, which also adds even more argumentation at that web-page itself: "One Flesh" - Exegesis. A man is "one flesh" with EACH woman with whom he copulates, whether in marriage (wife) or in fornication (harlot). When a married man, who is therefore already "one flesh" with his wife, copulates with another woman, that does not then negate his being "one flesh" with the wife. This is evident by the fact that 1_Corinthians 6:16 reveals that a man can be "one flesh" even with an harlot. As even a married man, therefore, can become "one flesh" with an harlot, that proves that a married man can indeed be "one flesh" with more than one woman, without negating his being "one flesh" with his wife. As that is so even with a married man with an harlot, it is thus just as equally true regarding a man being "one flesh" with more than one wife. For further proof, the very next verse provides the context of the plural-to-one aspect, i.e., 1_Corinthians 6:17: "But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." As EACH Christian is joined as "one spirit" with the Lord, that then demonstrates the context of the plural-to-one aspect. Namely, as EACH Christian is joined as "one spirit" with the Lord, so too may EACH woman be joined as "one flesh" with one man.

In the second portion, Mr. Heath simply quotes the opinion of a big government "liberal activist judge" who supported the unconstitutional notion of government involvement in so important a doctrine as marriage. While he may not have realized it deeply, it actually makes very little sense for Mr. Heath to "rest his case" on such a "Court Decision" opinion. After all, regarding the issue of pre-natal infanticide, called "abortion," Mr. Heath would most definitely not be willing to accept or let someone else "rest their case" with any quote from Roe v. Wade as if that quote somehow "settled the matter" for him or for other evangelical Christians. The reality is that it could more aptly be said that any judge throughout U.S. history who supported or empowered the unconstitutional big govermment involvement in marriage was/is an expansionist "liberal activist judge." Accordingly, the way in which Mr. Heath would respond under such other situations, such as with pre-natal infanticide, provides the same response given here by Christian Polygamists in this situation. Namely, it does not matter how many "liberal activist judges" give their opinion to justify the infringement of the Individual Rights of either pre-natal babies to live or God-fearing Christian Polygamists to marry, government still has no legitimate authority to enforce and empower such infringements of Individuals' Rights.

Final Encouragements

From all this, it is evident that Mr. Heath had not yet done his homework. In making his rather hubristic mistakes, he thought that all he had to do was try to "discredit" or "dismiss" Mr. Henkel and the growing movement of Christian Polygamy, as if such a movement of Bible-based evangelical Christians was "impossible" to consider in the first place. Consequently, he found himself frustrated because his inapplicable responses were sensibly unused.

The TruthBearer.org organization warmly encourages Mr. Heath to humbly begin that homework, that he may learn indeed. These answers hereon have not been shared with any condemnation or malice toward Mr. Heath, but rather only with genuine love in Christ to help him and anyone else not make the same mistake.

Just as the early Christians only sought to help the Pharisees come out of their mistakes unto the Truth of God's Word, and just as Protestants only sought to help the Catholics come out of their mistakes unto the Truth of God's Word, so too do Bible-believing Christian Polygamists only seek to help fellow Christians come out of their mistakes unto the Truth of God's Word. In the same way that Pharisees were hubristic toward early Christians, and that Catholics were hubristic towards Protestants, it is understood with all Christian lovingkindness and faith how today's Christians can and do fall into that same mistaken hurbris today toward Christian Polygamists.

It is prayed, therefore, that should Mr. Heath, the Christian Civic League (of Maine), and of all who profess Christ who read this web-page (indeed, read any of this organization's web-site), may all hereby recognize how that common mistake can occur here. And may they learn with all trusting faith what the Word of God really says about this issue and the growing movement called, Christian Polygamy.

As the slogan of the TruthBearer.org organization states, this is simply: Continuing the Reformation... ™

Lastly, the Portland Press Herald article did report, "Henkel said he is more than willing to engage in a biblical debate...". With that same explanatory thought in mind, this web-page herewith winds down to its end with a quote from the Founder of the TruthBearer.org organization, Mark Henkel, in an interview (available on tape) with the 700 Club. In it, he expresses his faith-caused confidence in the Word of God on the issue with sincere intent to help fellow Christians. The quote is re-printed from an August 2005 op-ed at www.Pro-Polygamy.com, titled, 700 Club airs its First Report on Christian Polygamy Movement:

As a final testimony of Henkel's Christian confidence, near the end of the interview, he offered himself to all of the Christian Churches, in a voice of gentle compassion.

QUOTE: "I have, basically, one thing I would like to say to every single conservative Christian, pastor, leader: Bring it on. Let's have an international television event. I'll take you all on, not because of me, but because the Word of God is so true. I'm nobody. I'm just a vessel... I'm nothing. The Word of God stands on Its own. And we can have this debate in front of everybody. I'll ask for a trial before all the churches. I'm glad to. But you know what? It's not likely to happen. Reason why? Because I'll win, because the truth really is the truth and the Spirit of God is the Spirit of God. Hallelujah!"

This doctrinal matter is not about "winning," though. It's about helping fellow Christians believe all the Truth of the Scriptures, as evangelical Christians profess to believe. It is also said with understanding that many are afraid to face what the Word God really says, which explains why they would fear such a debate: that is because they, too, know that Christian Polygamy arguments would unquestionably "win" any such debate. Even so, if some would still need such a public debate to so help such ones from that mistake, then that would be fine. Mr. Henkel has open arms in all faithfulness to do so. If any, including Mr. Heath, need to have a debate approach, that is fine indeed. Likewise, if they are able to humbly study on their own without such a debate, that is encouraged too. Either way, the TruthBearer.org organization is ready with the love of Christ to encourage and support all who are willing to do their homework and learn. What is important is that the Word of God be believed for what it absolutely does say.

For in the end, the Word of God absolutely does support Christian Polygamy, in Continuing the Reformation... ™

It is prayed that this web-page has been a blessing for all who may read it, especially for Mr. Heath and any of the members of the Christian Civic League, if they have read this too.

Truly, may the Lord GOD bless all who have read this.

TruthBearer.org

Media [Directory] Polygamy in the Media

Mark Henkel Interview Example - Important Questions & Media Credibility

Newsweek