I regard the issue of division as a small one, certainly not one that should lead to breaches of fellowship in the field between churches.
'To briefly restate the issue in hand. If Jacob, after marrying Leah and Rachel, and perhaps begetting children by them, approached the church today, you have said that you would require him to depart from Rachel and cease marital relations with her, prior to entering membership. I would not, but would strictly bar him from office. The picture has very close correspondence with contemporary situations in parts of the Middle East and China. Neither position is easy - both will lead to dangers and trouble, but I believe my action is consistent with God's law and revealed mind, and to operate your policy could lead to terrible shipwreck for a young believer, in already vexed circumstances. We both agree that if Jacob were to entertain a marriage to Rachel, after coming to Christ, he would be subject to excommunication. Ultimately, we heartily concur, it must be Biblical authority, and that alone, which dictates our policy. ...the primacy of the Law.... remains my chief apology. Whilst Scripture alone, not personal or cultural preference, must control our mindset, you have also raised parallel matters, which I address here briefly.
Primarily, I do take issue with [the]... assumption that the
traditional
view of evangelical missions, in handling converted polygamists, has
been
to compel a divorce of partners, particularly those unwilling to part.
What evidence or documentation bears this out? On the contrary, I
have found evidence, after extensive searching, that the general and
tentative
consensus during the last two centuries among evangelical missions
exposed
to polygamous societies has been to operate my policy, albeit with
caution.
I have already cited the statements of Moravian General Synod of 1879,
the Presbyterian Synod of Chao-Hwei-Chow, the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian
Church in India 1906, and the Rhenish Mission in China (1). The
Anglican
Lambeth Conventicle in 1888 is exceptional (2), but steps short of
recommending
divorce, and I suspect chiefly addresses sub-Saharan polygyny, which is
often less committed and different in character to that in the Old
Testament.
The Baptist Missionary Society statement [addressing the subject] in
1900
held no clear position (1).
Extensive enquiries from modern missions reveal widespread uncertainty. There are some important exceptions. The two main UK conservative missions, ..., North Africa Mission (now AWM) and Red Sea Mission Team, both embrace and have always embraced my policy, though the former allows liberty of conscience. Ray Porter, OMF's East Region Director, also endorses my view. Baptist Mid Missions incorporates it in their 1988 written policy statement. However even the representative appointed to respond to my enquiry, retained considerable reservations with it.
When I discussed it with him ..., James Grier advised me to contact Patrick Cate, of International Missions, whom he regards as the premier evangelical authority on witness to Muslims, so did Columbia Bible Seminary, which James Grier also recommended, as did Baptist Mid Missions. Patrick Cate and his mission also hold to my policy.
As to the issue of whether my position is in conflict with the reformed confessions, with respect, you have confused two separate issues. I do wholly concur that polygamy is tainted and unlawful, but is that, by itself, sufficient warrant to require divorce from those who have already entered into marital obligations? John Calvin expresses this distinction clearly and firmly in his exposition of the scriptures from 1 Timothy and Titus, both in his sermons and his commentaries. Was Robert Dabney's view of apostolic practise (under comments on the 7th commandment), also my own, inconsistent with the Westminster confession ? I think not. Did Matthew Poole or Albert Barnes, who also accord, 'defect from the orthodox view', like Jay Adams? With respect [your]... claims... are overstated. Pastor John Gill would, I suspect, have some sympathy for your position, but also find your view of the London Confession rather overstretched in the light of his own comment on apostolic practise in 1 Timothy 3, which also seems to agree with me. In fact the only major authority you've cited for support has been Charles Hodge, with who's view of the Law, as detached from God's moral character, none of us would hold, I trust. Nor is this unorthodox view incidental to his position on converted polygamists, since God's explicit decrees and actions in the Old Testament are consistent only with my policy.
As to the question of denominational positions, neither the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church of America, their
affiliated
missions, nor any other Presbyterian, Episcopal or Baptist
Denomination,
listed by the Westminster Theological Seminary, from whom I have
received
responses have positions on the issue between us. Nor does Westminster
Theological Seminary.... Naturally they do all regard polygamy as
unlawful.
I can document all that I claim, should one doubt these assertions.
.....
1. Commission. Appendix L, Pronouncements on Polygamy. The
church
in the mission field. 1 ed. Edinburgh: Oliphant, Andersen &
Ferrier,
1910:321-327. vol 1, [Evangelical Library].
2. Dunelm JB. Conference of Bishops. Lambeth: 1888. Resolutions and
extract from encyclical letter.