Continued from Part 1

In Female Bisexuality Revisited I attempted to make a detailed exposition of my personal, and this ministry's, understanding of what we call female bisexuality relative to its contemporary practice in Christian/Messianic Polygamy. Shortly afterwards I and my wives initiated a debate on the subject in our four main debating clubs and asked our members to present their views of bisexuality, pro and con. The debate lasted for several months and during it I announced that I was prepared to change my position on the subject if sufficient biblical evidence could be shown that I was wrong. The debate attracted one main antagonist (con) and two protagonists (pro).

During this time I was in contact with one of the wives of a Christian family consisting of one husband and two wives ('Celene' and 'Marlene') where female bisexuality is openly encouraged and practiced. My purpose was to better understand them. What particularly interested me about this family and its two bisexual sister-wives is that their spirit was very unlike that I had previously encountered in my contacts with other bisexual women. I found Celine, with whom I was in correspondence, to be a very sweet, open, honest, kind, Bible-loving and Christ-centred woman and I took to her spirit immediately. Though she admitted it was unlikely that she would change her lifestyle, because all three of them were blissfully happy, she was at least prepared to consider what I had to say and admitted that she had had some nagging doubts as a result of reading my article.

Not so with some other bisexual Christian women I have met. Not infrequently, and usually as a rule, I found them belligerent, defensive, and possessing an attitude and spirit which put their own personal desires before the biblical revelation. It was clear when talking to them that they were more interested in selectively using the Bible to defend their lifestyle rather than conforming their lifestyle to the full revelation of Torah. And had it not been for my contact with Celine I probably would have let my previous article rest as this ministry's final position and not open up a fresh debate.

This article, which I intend, as it were, to be the 'last word' on this topic as far as this ministry is concerned, was prompted by a vision I had early this morning. I had intended not to prepare anything for another couple of months as I am presently taking a break from the polygamy ministry but the deep impression left on me by the Holy Spirit changed all of that. In essence, I found myself spontaneously meditating on some of the bisexual women I had met (not Celine) when the Ruach (Spirit) burst upon me like a lightening flash and I suddenly 'saw' into the hearts of these women. And what I saw so shocked me - not because it was a new concept or understanding to me - but because of its shere force. What I saw - and I have seen it so many times in ministering to homosexuals and lesbians - was a spirit of raw hatred.

As a deliverance minister and one occupied on virtually a weekly basis helping those afflicted by evil spirits (demons) I meet this phenomenon nearly all the time. Hatred is the one consuming force that lies behind every demonic power and it is human hatred (and fear) which they feed off. Hatred and fear are the diametric opposite of love and peace and you will find these two powers lying behind every and any form of sexual perversion.

Another thing I noticed with the majority of 'Christian'/'Messianic' bisexual women I met was their seeming natural empathy and sympathy with homosexuality, lesbianism and bisexuality outside of Christian/Messianic polygamy. Whilst they acknowledged the 'letter of the law' as far as what the Bible states regarding homosexual and lesbian behaviour, it was at once obvious that spiritually they did not feel that different from their homosexual, lesbian and secular bisexual opposite numbers in the LGBT community at large. I sensed at once a contradiction, therefore, between the letter of their belief (the theology) and the spirit of their belief. And what particularly interested me in the debate that we promoted and fuelled on the Yahoo and MSN Groups (since closed down) was how the defendants of Christian/Messianic bisexuality basically only addressed the letter of Torah and various social issues, hardly ever addressing the Spirit. What I would like to do now is present what the protagonists had to say about bisexuality and then analyse this further.

Results of the Debate

I want to begin by saying how grateful I am for those who participated on both sides of the divide for they worked hard and presented their cases well. Our two protagonists essentially took two different approaches:

• (a) Peter Sacshe, who primarily argued in defense of bisexuality for sociological reasons; and
• (b) Cecil Woods who took a p'shat (plain sense, literalistic) view of the letter of Yahweh's Word.

Peter made many contributions, all very excellent and informative, but because of a lack of space and time, I am making a selection only of what he said. We begin with Peter, to whom I had previously written saying that I was going to be completely open about what he and others said, acknowledging my responsibility for the sake of the many bisexual women coming into Christian/Messianic polygamy, and my position of influence in the community, to get this right. This was his reply:

I am very impressed by your e-mail and I must also realize my responsibility in relation to God and the other human beings.

I still have to write another post on the morality of the question, but let me concentrate in this post on the opportunity. That is, what can be the consequences if a Minister like you defends or prohibits bisexuality among sister-wives.

You will tell me that what worries you is morality and not opportunity, but, although opportunity cannot make right a completely wrong thing, many things are not so clear-cut right or wrong: it depends on their effects. For instance, nuclear energy would be right, if the benefit to humanity is greater than the damages it can cause and the other way round.

1. What happens if a Minister defends the bisexuality of sister wives.

• a. All the religious circles – but by religious we mean also western, European, belonging to a culture and tradition that rejects polygyny - will be shocked and say: 'Aha, we knew it, this is only a cover-up for an immoral sect which is the refuge of lesbians'

• b. Many women of good faith will be disgusted and scared away.

• c. It will really happen that lesbians will be disproportionately overrepresented in polygynous marriages. But this is the price we have to pay for 4,000 years of banning polygyny in our culture. We have created something which didn't exist in polygynous cultures: lesbians. There is a parallel to what happened with alcohol in America in particular and Anglo-Saxon countries in general with alcoholic drinks: Anglo-Saxons don't know how to drink, do drink in an absurd manner (men drink big quantities of spirits till they fall down). The American 'prohibition' backfired in the form of alcohol = gangsterism. Alcohol has become the archetype of 'sin' for Anglo-Saxon Ministers in their Church preaching. Latin countries don't even conceive all this: they think naturally some wine during the meal and some spirits after it as a digestive. The same for Hashish: in our countries it is a dangerous drug: in Northern Africa people smoke hashish moderately after a meal and it doesn't make any problem.

• d. Many pious Christian people will be scared away…because as you know in "The 4 Pillars" Christian means European (culture) and European culture considers females bisexuality as the same kind of perversion as the male one. As Bertrand Rusell said: 'If all green things we know were humid, we could not distinguish the concept of 'green' from the concept of 'humid''. Since we don't know polygyny, all we know about female bisexuality are lesbians, that is those women who hate men and marriage. By the way, I don't know if you have heard that in America lesbian groups hate most of all those bisexual women who live in polygynous marriages. They consider them as 'traitors' to the lesbian cause, because they accept the love of a man at the same time as the love of a woman.

2. What happens if Christian polygyny doesn't accept bisexuality in sister wives.

• a. It won't work at all, save for a tiny minority. For many women, it will become a source of conflicts and temptations.

• b. It is obvious that a woman doesn't need to be a lesbian or abnormal at all for enjoying her beloved sister wife making love to the common husband. It can remain there. It is also normal that it doesn't remain there, but they can end up caressing and kissing each other. It can remain there. But, it can go farther for the sake of love and giving pleasure to their husband. What happens if one of the wives tries to go farther and the other one says: 'you are making me sin'? It can destroy the mutual love and the whole relationship man - 1woman, man-2 woman and woman-woman. I see it as the same kind of inhuman thing the Catholic Church preaches when saying that husband and wife, who cannot afford to have a child (may be, because the wife would die), are sinning if making love. Again Jesus didn't say nor what the Catholic Church says in respect to contraception nor what you say in respect to bisexuality of wives. And St. Paul WASN'T REFERRING to polygynous marriages, but to lesbians. The Catholic Church condemns also contraception, taking God's condemnation of Onan, but here the context was also different.

• c. We are not anymore in the Victorian world and we cannot confine Christian religion to sex-bigotts. The acceptance of homosexuality and lesbianism by the modern world is an unfortunate fact we cannot forget. The people we are going to lose if we accept bisexuality of sister wives are, most of them, anti-polygynous anyway. We can win lesbians to Christian Religion…wait a minute before you 'protest'…and UNDO their lesbianism and win them for family and marriage. We can stop them form exchanging the natural use and leaving the natural use – as St. Paul said - so that they do what many Torah-faithful women did along the Old Testament, without being accused of sinning by no Prophet not even by Jesus.

• d. Tell me of a polygynous civilization where bisexual sister wives were accused of sinning? Not in the Torah nor in the Gospel indeed. DO YOU THINK YOU OR WE ARE GOING TO BE WISER ? Do you think that this new polygynous system we are inventing with a NEW strict anti-sister wife bisexuality commandment (or 'higher moral standard' if you prefer) is going to work?

Now another question: How did polygyny work in the classical ancient polygynous civilization and how can it work today?

The consequence of all I am saying in the following lines is that in the classical ancient polygynous civilization, there were many cases where polygyny did work and could work without bisexuality. All these cases and reasons don't exist anymore in our world. If even in those times, nobody dared to prohibit bisexuality, tell me how are you going to prohibit it now without making polygyny almost impossible for almost all?

It used to work, because:

1. Women were submitted to men. You may say – rightly – that women must be submitted to their husbands. Yes, but today's submission has to be different, because women have a system of civil liberties and the opportunity to have an independent job. They didn't before and, nevertheless, not even in those times did men (nor religion) dare to prohibit wives to have sexual contacts among them if they wished. The point is that men did tell their wives that they wanted to have a second or third wife and they had little possibilities to stop men from doing it.

2. The necessity to have more children. In those polygynous times and in those polygynous civilizations, public opinion, states and individuals considered that having as many children as possible was a benediction of God and also the only social security for aged people. Wives would induce their husbands to have more children by means of a new wife.

3. Human solidarity among women for would-be spinsters and widows. Religion(s) and opinion considered a disgrace that any woman would stay as a spinster or any widow wouldn't remarry. Women even requested their husbands to marry them.

4. Family organization. Wives didn't mind a second or third wife, because religious and social organization made an evident matter that the first wife had an established place and certain rights and so on.

5. Polygynous families were not persecuted, but considered a good big family.

6. People knew that men were men and women were women, nobody said that polygyny was a discrimination against women, because men and women were equal in the sense that they HAD TO do exactly the same things as men.

7. Women knew that the only way they could avoid too much sexual contact with an oversexed husband was to tell him: 'get a second wife'.

8. A woman, who had become too old for her husband didn't fear a younger one as second wife: social and religious rules gave each of them a definite place.

Today, in our world, till polygyny gets re-established for many years, all these reasons don't work:

1. Women are not anymore submitted to men and no man can afford to get a second wife, not even without the consent of his (first) wife, but even if she is not enthusiastic about it. If you couldn't prevent sexual contact among co-wives in those times, tell me how are you going to tell a woman, you want to get married to another one, who she must like, love and be friends with anyway, but that they should beware of 'sinning'. As I always tell you, may be you can do so among ministers or extremely religious people, for then you are confining polygyny to a tiny minority.

2. The necessity to have more children. Today having children has become a problem. Wives could get jealous, because one more child of the second one can mean one less child of the first one. They must love each other even more deeply.

3. Human solidarity among women for would-be spinsters and widows. This has been destroyed by artificially created jealousy by society and media. Again, bisexuality can today be an incentive for this solidarity.

4. Family organization. Women are afraid today of second wives displacing them and ending up in her husband divorcing her for the sake of the second one…a sexual triangle among the three of them is often the only way of overcoming mutual jealousy.

5. Polygynous families are persecuted. Of course, very spiritual women can be happy of suffering this persecution for the sake of the happiness of the husband and the second wife, but, again, a sexual triangle among the three of them can help a lot.

6. People are now convinced that men and women are identical. That is why polygyny gets automatically the stigma of being male-chauvinistic, contrary to equality –a constitutional right – and so on. You can only defeat it this way: How can you prevent in the name of equality bisexual women from being happy in a polygynous marriage?

7. Women know that they can avoid too much sexual contact with an oversexed husband, letting him to have casual sex with other women.

8. A woman, who has become too old for her husband does fear a younger one as a second wife: social and religious rules push even the husband to divorce one of them.

Peter Sachse

This, then, is the sociological line of argument in defence of making bisexuality between sister wives permissive at least for now. But are these liberal arguments - reasonable and fair though they sound - justifiable from Yahweh's Word? Cecil Woods (who comes from an Adventist background) has a different solution to the problem. His posting is in response to another statement by Peter:

I've read this series with interest, and would like to add the following comments.

• (a) What is sin? Peter is defining it as hurting one's neighbor, and that's great. But lets also remember that it is specifically defined in 1 John 3:4 as "transgression of the law (Torah)". That gives us an objective point on which to discuss whether it is or is not sin.

  Adviseable? Preferable? Beneficial? Hurtful? Dangerous? We can argue these all day long with our own opinions. But when it comes to defining it as 'sinful', our opinions cease to matter. Only what is written in scripture counts, for those of us who consider ourselves in line with the 'sola scriptura' cry of the Reformation.

• (b) What IS the law on the topic of bisexual wives? Are we to assume that God's silence on the topic stems from a) the absence of bisexuality, or b) absent-mindedness on law-giving day?

  Neither seems likely, in my opinion. God went to what seem to me extraordinary lengths to cover the various prohibited practices. Even to the extent of prohibiting shaving the beard as a sign of mourning, which to me (this HUMAN) seems a far more minor issue.

  What's more, as I read Leviticus 20, as well as the other passages in Torah regarding prohibited sexual liaisons, I'm struck by the gender specific nature of the statements. "If a man does ...", "If a woman does ...", "If either a man or a woman does ...", etc. This was not a series of general easily-mixed-up specifications. They were specific. And what I find, specifically, is Leviticus 20:13. "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death."

  There's no prevarication there. No adjective clauses. Cut and dried, you do it, you should die.

  But that is MALES. No equivalent passage is given for women. None. And I am unwilling to believe that God had a touch of Alzheimer's that day.

  Nor am I willing to believe that it was a total non-issue in a population of millions, where plural marriage was common. Solomon says that there is nothing new under the sun. If someone wants to claim that bisexuality among sister-wives in a polygamous marriage IS something new, then I would say that the onus of proof is upon them, rather than upon those who claim it is not.

  What we DO have, in Paul's writings about woman-woman contact DOES contain adjective clauses. "LEAVING the natural use ...". Romans 1:26

  One of our arguments in favor of polygamy, against the popular misteaching, is that when Jesus condemned divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19:8-9, he was talking about divorce, not Plural Marriage. The issue was the pagan practice of SUBSTITUTION, whereas God's plan was ADDITION. Jesus was not denouncing addition of wives, but was soundly condemning substitution or replacement.

  The same argument would seem to apply to Paul's comments in Romans 1. According to the text, replacement was at issue, and replacement was condemned, while the issue of addition was left alone. Thus wives within a plural marriage would have the choice whether to engage each other or not, but only in addition to their primary relationship with their husband.

  Which, when you come to think of it, parallels our male relationships before God. While sex is not the issue, closeness of relationships is. We are free to enter into close friendships and fellowships with each other, and should, but only secondarily to our primary relationship with Christ. Any focus on another human which SUPPLANTS our primary relationship constitutes spiritual adultery / idolatry.

  And finally, Paul, like you and I, was subject to Deuteronomy 12:32. He was not free to add to nor to take away from the Law. We should read whatever he wrote with that in mind, so as to understand HIS intent when writing.

  Cecil

The second posting made by Cecil was in response to an article attacking bisexuality in women. As this article was very sexually explicit it has not been reproduced here.

So far as I can tell, my friend, your whole position is based upon the fact that BiSexuality among wives is nowhere specifically permitted, and upon a series of speculations in which, IN YOUR VIEW, other passages could be seen as applying to the situation.

I respect your right to hold your view, and encourage you to live in harmony with it, so long as you hold it. That constitutes integrity.

Others of us, however, do not see it that way.

We do not require special permission to do that which God did not specifically prohibit while prohibiting a series of other relationships in the same area.

We do not like to add these speculative 'it could apply in such and such a manner' things.

We don't like to add prohibitions which God did not. Even for practices in which we don't particularly want to engage ourselves.

We don't try to specify how God MUST have worded scripture differently if He intended to specifically permit a practice when, in fact, He specifically left it alone.

What your argument seemed to me to specifically showcase was the difference between those who take the 'if not prohibited, it is permitted' stance, and those who take the 'if not specifically permitted, it is prohibited' viewpoint.

This general stance towards scripture (held by others of us) doesn't apply simply to those who are seeking an excuse to continue in their present course. I have friends who are NOT particularly interested in P[lural] M[arriage], but who intend to withdraw from an organization in which we are both involved on account of this organization's recent decision to ostracize me over Plural Marriage. Why? This same attitude towards scripture. They're unwilling to add restrictions which God did not. I appreciate their stance.

And, by the way, your concern about a woman having her hymen broken by premarital lesbian oral sex? No one is advocating premarital sex of any variety, lesbian or heterosexual. (What's more, the barrier is routinely broken nowadays so as to use tampons instead of the far less comfortable pads. Does that make the woman in question a harlot?)

Nor is anyone saying that these 3 wives all cuddling and having sex with their husband at one time MUST have sexual contact with each other, either while with him or separately.

All I'm saying, (and I can't speak for Peter), is that I'm EXCEEDINGLY reluctant to place a restriction which God did not find it advisable to speak up and clearly state at any time during the 1,800 or whatever years during which the Canon of Scripture was given. I'm mistaken often enough without having to have God come along and call me a liar.

God isn't known for beating around the bush when He wants to clear up an issue. He's not bound by euphemisms and sorta-figure-that-it- might-also-apply-to's. He speaks up and states what's on His mind. In this case, He didn't. Alzheimer's or intentionally, He didn't.

At best, or perhaps worst, I think that this is an area, like several others, in which we ought to present the case for both sides, as even- handedly as possible, then let folks make up their own minds, trusting the Holy Spirit to lead them in a manner which will be of benefit and not do damage to themselves.

For what might work well and be a blessing in one family might well be a downfall and cause for grief in another. In my own limited experience, I know one family in which wifely bisexuality has been a tremendous blessing to the family. I also know another in which it broke the family up.

Do I therefore conclude that it is only a detriment, and to be avoided? Well, the same argument can be made against polygamy. One family, a huge blessing. Another it broke up. Same can be said in monogamous families on so many issues ... 50% of them break up after all.

This is kinda weird, as I find myself in the advocate's role for something that is just pretty much a non-issue for me. Don't mind too much either way. Might even personally prefer to avoid it.

Cecil

Both men, in my view, argue very well from their two different positions. From a purely legalistic point-of-view (that is, letter-of-the-law), Cecil cannot be faulted. His assumption - that we have in our current Protestant Bible - the full and complete revelation from Yahweh on all matters spiritual and temporal relating to human relations, whilst acceptable to probably the vast majority, would be challenged by others who are quick to point out that these very canonical books refer to other scriptures which have either been lost or suppressed. Whether the Protestant Canon (and there are other canons in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic Churches) is complete or not is ultimately a matter of faith. Using the same logic as Cecil has here, we might even find a case for lawful pedophilia (not that I am advocating that, Yah forbid!) as no age guidlines are given in Torah for marriage. The 'age of consent' has varied enormously over the years and in different countries sex is legally permitted between minors as young as 13 (Holland and Spain). The age at which men and women can get married has varied during the years and even now varies between countries (the common ones being 16, 18 and 21) though in Bible times it is well known that marriages were contracted even younger, the determining factor seemingly being (in the case of the man) his ability to provide for his bride and (in the case of the woman or girl) whether she was sexually mature enough or not. The Talmudists, with no age specifications in Torah, even went as far as betrothing small children! Would Cecil argue here that Yahweh had a case of Alzheimer's? Or might a better argument be that, like many statutes in Torah, laws were created (or omitted) because of the hardness of men's hearts? Whilst we are not permitted to add to Torah, Yah'shua (Jesus) seems to have had no problem in making certain 'modifications' such as tightening up on the divorce laws (hearkening to a time before the Law of Moses when there was no divorce) and commanding Yahweh's people to cease hating their non-Israelite enemies but love them instead.

My point here is that Cecil's sola scripture argument is not as watertight as it might seem. As we look at the tenor of the New Covenant Scriptures we moreover observe that one of Yah'shua's (Jesus') purposes was to reveal the spiritual ground for things. Thus, we learn, it is not enough to apply the Torah legalistically in matters of divorce for we are required to also be aware of spiritual causes like unlawfully lusting after somone in one's heart. If adultery can be committed in the heart, what then of wrong sex?

One of the arguments advanced by bisexuals is that 'anything goes' within marriage, and as I argued in my last article, this simply isn't true. Sex is strictly forbidden during menstruation. There were, in Torah, also imposed sexual fasts at certain times. We are simply not allowed to do whatever we want to sexually, even within the framework of a marriage covenant.

As a deliverance minister I am constantly coming across people who are, from the stance of the letter-of-the-law, having 'lawful' sex yet who are spiritually contaminated and are allowing in demons. Now again there are people who discount or diminish the importance of demons and who do not even acknowledge such a thing as "deliverance ministry". The Bible certainly makes mention of demons but doesn't go into the kind of detail that deliverance ministers would perhaps sometimes like. It has taken much prayer and experience discovering how to minister to people in this area, requiring, in fact 'extra-biblical' revelation. It's a ministry that is either scarce or little understood. Another case of Alzheimer's? No, not at all. The Bible nowhere claims to be self-sufficient in every matter of life even though it is perfectly true is covers most. That is is why, I maintain, apostolic inspiration is required today as it was in the time of the first Christians.

I will conceed that the Bible no where prohibits women in a plural marriage being physically intimate. I will also agree that it is possible to limit the interpretion of the Pauline scripture that talks about homosexuality and lesbianism to mean that so long as the natural male-female function is not exchanged for female-female intimacy that such intimacy is not condemned. But how then do you address - in a simply mongamous marriage, for example - a case where a husband wants kinky sex with his wife using sexual aids (I am sure you can use your imagination): does one say that such aids are OK because the Bible mentions nothing about them? Or shall we rather not appeal to a higher set of spiritual principles to determine whether certain sexual activities within the marriage covenant are permitted or not?

I maintained in my last article that the purpose of sex was two-fold:

• (1) Procreation; and
• (2) Bonding between husband and wife, and that the two were connected.

It is a fact that no one can deny that the act of sex, when brought to its final climax, leads to certain biological events whose purpose is conception! The fact also that it is banned in Torah during menstruation when conception cannot take place reinforces this spiritual ground, namely, that it is a procreative act with certain pleasurable side effects. This being so, any sex that does not have, as its intent, conception - whether it takes place or not (this being a matter of chance or Yahweh's providence, depending on your point-of-view) - cannot be what sex was originally intended for. I advance this as a common-sense argument taken from a leaf of the Book of Life called Nature, or what the Bible calls the "natural" Torah. It is the abrogation of this "natural" use of sex in homosexual and lesbian activity that Paul specifically attacks. In short, any kind of sexual activity which has, as its goal, a union that cannot lead to conception is AGAINST NATURE and therefore the Created Order. Or to put it another way, two sister-wives engaging in sex for the purpose of mutual stimulation whose end is an orgasm - the parallel of which is the male orgasm whose purpose is to impregnate his wife - cannot be right.

This is one side of the issue. The other is the actual spiritual "lusting" (eagerly desiring) of one woman for another that leads to such a physical object. If we go back to the Garden of Eden we discover that Eve has this "longing" or "desire" (Heb. teshuqah - running after, overflowing desire) for Adam:

"Your desire shall be for your husband" (Genesis 3:16, NKJV).

This is the desire or longing that leads to sexual intercourse and is mental, emotional, and finally physical.

This verb teshuqah is an important key and in its sexual aspect occurs in only one other place in the Bible. There are other words for 'desire' in Hebrew but they are either of general meaning (e.g. chafets, desiring or having pleasure in knowledge - Job 21:14) or sexual in a negative way (e.g. chamad, desiring your neighbour's wife - Deuteronomy 5:21 or his land - Exodus 34:24). The other instance of its use sexually is in the romantic Song of Solomon:

"I am my beloved's, and his [longing, overflowing sexual] desire is toward me" (Song 7:10, NKJV).

This teshuqah concerns only the longing that comes as married members of the opposite sex are drawn towards each other for the purpose of natural consummation.

Now I am not saying that sister-wives cannot be physically intimate with one another but what I am saying is if the force behind such a desire is such that the two women feel impelled to consummate their desire as a married man and woman would that it is lesbianism and therefore sinful. The only teshuqah that a women should have is towards her husband! If a wife wishes to aid her sister-wife in obtaining that with her husband by mutually agreed stimulation then I don't see a problem with that so long as she does not then become attracted to the sister-wife by teshuqah. In other words, intimacy is permitted so long as it isn't bisexual/lesbian and the parties like that sort of thing and have consented to it!

I have no doubt that most women would not want this kind of intimacy - I know my current wives don't, and that is their right which I respect. But if two other wives came along and wanted greater closeness of a physical kind that wasn't lesbian/bisexual, I would not object, but I would be very careful to be spiritually alert to make sure it didn't descend into lesbian attraction and result in demonisation. And because this is a real danger, I would strongly discourage it as a general rule, as I have done in my other articles on this subject.

The bottom line here is spiritual discernment, and if you don't have it, don't even think about this kind of activity! So long as the women's teshuqah or desire is union with their husband and not each other, then they are on safe ground. Any woman coming into a polygamous marriage having had same-sex lesbian/bisexual liasons will without a shadow of a doubt have a demon problem and need deliverance before entering the marriage ... and she should also be sexually celibate for at least a year if she has had such sexual activity. If a woman has bisexual feelings but has not had sex with another woman, then she should also have councelling and deliverane to straighten out the inner spiritual woman. For those who enter a polygamous relationship with bisexual/lesbian tendencies will be bringing into that marriage the same spirit that plagues the LGBT community generally. I find no evidence that bisexual women are any different from bisexual men in their sexual disposition and therefore find no gounds for saying that they are in some way 'special' and exempt from the sin-condemnation that falls upon active bisexual men. Any and all forms of homosexuality/lesbianism are demon-mediated spiritual dysfunction. That is not to say that such are necessarily 'possessed' - for there are always degrees - but it does mean to say that they are controlled and/or oppressed.

For many Christian/Messianic polygamists, sexual purity does not rate very high on their list of priorities. This is to be enormously regretted. It is not true that the marriage bed sanctifies all and every kind of sex. There is pure sex and impure sex - impure sex outside marriage, and pure and impure sex within marriage. Marriage does not give us the licence to indulge our every carnal fantasy, but is something holy and sacred - so much so that Yah'shua (Jesus) uses it as an illustration of the spiritual union between Himself and the Church or Messianic Community.

The union between a man and woman - or one man and several women in Christian/Messianic polygamy - is described by Paul as a "mystery". Powerful and beautiful forces attend it, and Satan - who is the enemy of all righteousness - desires to spoil that at all costs. The Bible, as I have mentioned on this site many times, is enthusiastically pro-marriage and pro-sex, but only within the parameters permitted by Yahweh. Anything outside these parameters is considered so serious a transgression that the death penalty is mandated upon all unlawful forms of sex. This in itself should sober us up and cause us to seriously reflect on all we do in our sexual lives. Because the letter-of-the-law Torah is silent about sexual activity between women in a plural marriage does not mean that we can rush ahead and endorse bisexuality. Perhaps such was permitted or tolerated under Old Covenant Torah, but is the same true for New Covenant Torah? Is not the the whole movement of Yah'shua's (Jesus') teachings to higher perceptions and realisations of morality and ethics? Does He not admonish us to consider very carefully all our motives for doing things, imputing sin as much on motive as on outer behaviour? And this being so, should a minister like myself limit his comments and counsel to the letter-of-the-law as perhaps the Rabbis may have done two millennia before and earlier?

There are many who stress the freedom that devolves upon us concerning matters beyond the letter, and perhaps they are correct. Certainly, if a polygamous family were a member of my congregation and I knew the sister-wives engaged in bisexual sex, would it be any business of mine, as a Pastor, to counsel that family beyond the letter-of-the-law? These are not easy questions, and my initial answer would probably be a cautious 'no', at least if they did not come to me for counsel of their own free will and were not influencing the congregation into acceptance of lesbianism. I would of course be concerned. It would be a very delicate balance. I would, at the same time, prayerfully walk in faith that Yahweh would guide them naturally out of anything that would be harmful to them but to no-one else in the congregation. In all good conscience, I do not think I could do any more or less.

It is possible that Peter's implication that bisexual sex in Christian/Messianic polygamy is permissive but not the ideal, and that tolerating it is the lesser of two evils if it means helping bring bisexual women to salvation? Could I be treading on very thin ice here? Should one tolerate it provided its practicioners keep a low profile and not evangelise for female bisexuality? For if bisexual sex is not, in fact, a sin, then why technically should not such women be free to evangelise for it with a view to reaching the bisexual community of women for Christ? The result of such activity could, if it turns out to be wrong, be to encourage heterosexual women to experiment in much the same way that they do outside marriage, and this would not be wholesome. I posit these as honest questions which everyone should be asking themselves.

I do believe that unless you keep sister-wives fully apart during sex with their husband - as many believe to be right and which is holy and perfectly acceptable to me if that is a family's preference - that there has to be a third way which is led by the Spirit and which is not based on lesbian attraction but something else. The question that remains in this 'third way' is this: how can you be sure you are being led by the Spirit and not by your personal desires? The sex- and romantic-force can be powerful and intoxicating, and not a few souls have been deceived by it into unlawful behaviour, and frequently to spiritual destruction. Obviously great care has to be taken here that requires a certain degree of spiritual maturity for proper discernment.

My desire in this essay has been to be obedient to Torah, faithful to my conscience, true to the Spirit as I discern Her at this point in my sanctification (or lack of it) and to be scrupulously fair. In all conscience I cannot give the green-light to free bisexuality in Christian/Messianic polygamy but neither can I judge or condemn all forms of female-female intimacy. I am deeply concerned about the demonic element behind homosexuality and lesbianism (which is very real) but at the same time I recognise that one cannot - and should not - monitor the bedroom activity of married persons. It simply is not the business of the Pastor to pry there so long as they are being Torah-observant and are not openly evangelising for something the local congregation does not accept generally. But if sufficient trust exists between a member of a congregation and his or her Pastor, and if his spiritual discernment has proven to be reliable, and if he obtains a word from Yahweh that something is amiss, then clearly some sort of warning has to be made - in private, with consideration and sensitivity to everyone's feelings, and without railing accusation, with the onus for a change in sexual change being left to the free agency of the parties concerned. I am also deeply concerned that the sanctity of the marriage covenant should be upheld and that any forces which might threaten the integrity of a marriage be held in check. In other words, fight for the preservation of your marriage! With compassion, mutual care and consideration, all things can be worked out.

If those who believe they are bisexual women (married or unmarried) and who love Christ with all their hearts are willing to accept me on the basis of what I have written here, then I am willing to extend the right-hand of fellowship to them and cherish them as potential wives and/or sisters in Christ (if they are already married or single). And unless I am given a clear and unambigious revelation to the contrary, this is my final position on the matter of bisexuality amongst sister-wives, and is the current position of this ministry. (And remains so today - 2016).

Continued in Part 3

Read the ministry's Bisexuality series

Read the Women in Love series

---

Letter from Peter Sachse (27 December 2002)

"You have expressed, much better than I did, what I really meant about bisexuality among sister wives. Now I agree with you."

Peter Sachse

---

Author: SBSK