I was shocked to discover this morning, after installing an app on my MacBook so I could watch our streaming services while working, that the Brown family had broken up. You know them, the notoriously famous family from the wildly popular show.
I watched the first several seasons over the years, but stopped probably eight or nine seasons ago just out of boredom. And while I new Cody’s marriage to Meri was having difficulty, everything seemed fine with the other three wives when I stopped watching. Apparently, though, this was not the case.
So, let’s jump in and discuss the show briefly, provide my thoughts on polygamy and polyamory in general, and then offer some background from an unpublished article I wrote a year ago concerning both states when I first married my wife.
As a reminder, you can find all of my course assignments for the uThM here.
So, let’s get started….
Sister Wives: the Show
One important distinction before we get into the weeds: the Brown family are Mormons. Well, not LDS. Mormons, but the FLDS, those who still practice polygamy as a religious rite. This means, among other things, that their motives are somewhat if not entirely different for entering into and practicing any kind of plural marriage, and it also limits the Brown family to one type.
This may not be the case for others who practice such marital unions. Muslims do so to varying degrees, though it is said that less than 1% of Muslims actually have more than one spouse. Mormons are, of course, the progenitors in the modern era, with the biblical accounts offering some form of pre-mormon precedence.
The Principle, as it is called in Mormonism, was practiced by the original founders of the cult. Instituted in the 1830s by Joseph Smith, after studying the Old Testament, using the examples found therein and personal prophecy to support polygamy. It was declared an official practice in 1852 and by the 1880s it was practiced by 20-30% of those identifying as Mormon. It became a hot button issue for the United States in the 19th and 20th centuries, with the church defending the practice by the claim for religious freedom and the government trying to end it. It was a factor in the Utah War, and was often linked to the two woes of the Republican platform: polygamy and slavery. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was passed in 1862, essentially outlawing the practice in US territories, which was later upheld by the Supreme Court. In 1890, it was apparent that Utah would not be admitted into the US as long as polygamy was legal within its borders, prompting an abrupt reversal from the church, allowing Utah’s inclusion as the 45th state in 1896. It would take another eight years before the church declared a universal edict to end all polygamous relationships or be excommunicated. This action, of course, caused splintering from the LDS, creating several “fundamentalist” groups that desired to keep the practice alive.
The Brown family came on the scene in 2010, rocking the television screen with a new kind of polygamy – one that was out in the open for all to see with modern dress and speech and inclusion and immersion into modern culture – something traditional polygamy could not claim. So popular were they, that the Utah authorities began to crack down on polygamists shortly after the show started, and this drove the Browns out of Utah and to Las Vegas.
Kodi Brown was not a “bigamist” because he was only legally married to his first wife, Meri. The remaining three relationships were “spiritual unions.” The first few seasons saw a lot of new awareness concerning the polygamous way of life and also won some court challenges in Utah in 2013, but such was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016.
This show came on the heels of another very popular polygamist mormon television show, Big Love, which showcased a man named Bill Hendricks who secretly had three (soon to be four) wives in Utah and was connected with a fundamentalist sect known as Juniper Creek.
Another interesting show that focused on similar ideas, but more specifically on modern polyamory, was You, Me, and Her, showcasing a yuppie couple in a Portland suburb who brought a young college girl into their relationship, later marrying her.
Why Our Culture is Interested
Of course, our culture today is interested and fixated on anything that is opposed to Christianity or is considered heterodoxical to Catholicism or Protestantism. This has been smuggled in by way of the same sex marriage issue, the gender identity issue, and critical race theory, even though most polygamists are severely fundamental in all other areas, though polyamorous people would be more inclined to identify with those ideologies than the former would. It is analogous with the concept of “free love” or the freedom to choose whoever you are attracted to as a partner, or the ability to maintain an open relationship in marriage (being able to sleep around).
Regardless, though, of our definitions, our limitations, or our applications, both polygamy and polyamory have become common household concepts that we all must wrestle with, including the modern evangelical and protestant church.
I Wrote an Article About It a Year Ago
Last year, as I married my current wife, we had many discussions about this concept, especially about polyamory due to the television shows we were watching at the time and the news broadcasts happening concerning the Browns’ court cases.
I spent a great deal of time researching the subject and playing devil’s advocate to explore both sides of the argument, but in the end came away with some fascinating conclusions. In the rest of this article we will be discussing two types of plural marriage: polygamy, or a man in relationship with two or more women and polyamory, a relationship where all individuals are in a relationship with each other. While there are, of course, several references in the Bible to polygamy, it is important to note from the onset, there are no biblical references to polyamory (aside from the possible indirect negative found in Romans 1).
While it can be quick to point out that the Law of Moses did only enough to adjudicate polygamy for the Jewish people, it is sometimes surprising to discover that nothing in the Bible directly condemns plural marriage or renders it in any way unethical or immoral. In the handful of references to the practice found in Scripture, it was by no way handled as a sin, and even several of the patriarchs who have high praise in the Christian faith had multiple wives, as will be discussed.
Of course, when we speak of either polygamy or polyamory, we are not in any way attempting to give cause or justification to commit fornication (1 Th 4:3) or adultery (John 8:3), which both are explicitly condemned in Scripture. We are not trying to use proof texts to argue for individuals pursuing sexual relationships outside of their marital vows. We are likewise not discussing whether it is morally acceptable to be involved in casual dating, or the proverbial “hook up,” or a “swinger” lifestyle. Such behaviors are clearly gross violations of the fundamental fidelity of the marital vow, not to mention perversely disruptive to such a relationship and the entire family unit (Deuteronomy 22:22-30; Lev 20:10; 1 Co 6:18; Col 3:5; 1 Co 5:1; He 13:4; Ro 13:13).
The questions this article will be tackling are:
1. Firstly, is it biblically acceptable, allowable, or at minimum unregulated, for a man to have two or more wives and still be within the confines of orthodoxical Christian practice?
2. Secondly, if the first question is affirmed, is it possible for said Christian to engage in a polyamorous relationship with two or more women who are simultaneously sexually involved with each other?
Polygamy in the Old Testament
Those who had more than one wife in the Bible are more than, as is often argued, a temporary solution to a seasonal problem. We find Lamech Genesis 4:19; Abraham Genesis 16; Esau Genesis 26:34; 28:9; Jacob Genesis 29:30; Ashur 1 Chr 4:5; Gideon Judges 8:30; Elkanah 1 Sam 1:2; David 1 Sam 25:39-44; 2 Sam 3:2-5; 5:13; 1 Chronicles 14:3; Solomon 1 Kings 11:1-8; Rehoboam 2 Chron 11:18-23; Abijah 2 Chron 13:21; Jehoram 2 Chron 21:14; Joash 2 Chron 24:3; Ahab 2 Kings 10; Jehoiachin 2 Kings 24:15; and Belshazzar Daniel 5:2 all had more than one wife during their lives. It was not, as the Mormons claim, everyone in biblical history had and did practice “the principle,” but it was handled rather unceremoniously and quite practically when it did occur; it does appear to be quite common place.
Some instructions were given in the Law for those who had more than one wife, such as: Ex 21:7-11; Deut 21:15-17; Leviticus 18:18 and 2 Sa 12:7-8. Those who would argue against “marital rights” not being in view in Ex 21:10 are mistaken. It is clear the individual is to keep the first wife (who has all the marital rights – most literally sexual intercourse and intimacy) while also providing for the second in the same manner. Likewise, despite rationalizations to the contrary, it does appear as if Lev 18:18 implies that a man should not marry a woman who is the sister of his first wife. This would intimate, logically, that it is lawful for the man to marry a second wife (while still be married to his first wife) as long as the second wife was not his first wife’s sister.
Lastly, arguing that 2 Sa 12:7-8 does not condone polygamy is to simply overlook the plain reading of the text. God clearly tells David, “I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives…” Maybe this does not explicitly approve of polygamy, but we can say with some certainty God did indeed give Saul’s wives to David to be his wives. But God goes on to say, “And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!”
Such examples do not, as some would argue, be responsible for their children’s’ sins later in life (2 Sam 13). Likewise, linking polygamy with David’s actions with Bathsheba is ill advised, as the situation had less to do with polygamy as it had to do with lust and David’s desire to murder to have the object of his affections.
The situation of Gen 19:30-38 when the two daughters of Lot made the decision to get their father intoxicated so they could both be impregnated is certainly a disturbing one. Their bizarre unions produced descendants that would later become the Moabites and Ammonites and also has very little to do with plural marriage and much more to do with the long-term perils of incest. Make note, though, this incident was recorded with nothing at all said concerning its ethical standing before God. Does this mean that it is an example of polygamy (only in the most literal and crudest sense)? Does this justify child sexual abuse (Certainly not)? There were no under age children involved here (pedophilia is something entirely different – and also note the necessity of the daughters to get their father intoxicated, indicating his unwillingness to do such a thing)? Does it justify incest (Hardly)? The reality is, this example is a one-off incident cryptically described in the biblical text. Its ultimate result: producing two races of people who were hostile to God’s people.
The argument from 1 Kings 11:3-4 that Solomon had problems because of polygamy can also be dismissed. His difficulties did not stem necessarily from having a multiplicity of wives, but that the choice of women in which he joined himself to were from pagan cultures and they ultimately lured him away from God and to following after other gods.
While the marriage between Jacob and his two wives, Rachel and Leah, are an actual example of polygamy, it is far from what is being discussed or entered into today. This/these marriage(es) was/were directed by deep cultural requirements as well as the distinct influence of God, with very unique circumstances. To say that Rachel envied Leah and thus all polygamous relationships lead to envy and jealousy is shortsighted and biased. The reality is more common to the human condition than to a tiny subset. All marriages struggle with these issues, no less the polyamorous ones.
The View of Marriage in the New Testament
There is nothing in the New Testament referencing polygamy or polyamory directly, and only one possible indirect reference in Ro 1. There are references to the husband being a “one woman man” and that the “two will become one flesh” (Matt 19:4-6; 1 Co 7:2 Eph 5:22-23; 1 Ti 3:12).
The argument that in patriarchal societies, women had no means of supporting themselves and relied on a father, brother, or husband to provide and protect them and, thus, driving them to plural marriage is false at the risk of the alternative which was prostitution or slavery is false. This was not God’s temporary solution to a cultural problem concerning at-risk women. The caliber of women who married David or Solomon was certainly high. They were not in jeopardy of living on the streets if they didn’t marry the first man (or king) they met.
Likewise, to conclude that the Bible presents monogamy as the closest ideal state for the individual is sorely incorrect and hermeneutically dishonest. The Bible presents neither as the preferred or ideal state, but would rather all people remain single and celibate, or, at best, remain in the state they were in when they were called by Christ (1 Co 7; Matt 19:10-12). In reality, we find no explicit condemnation or exclusion of polygamy in the Bible, save for specific instructions to limit the seemingly limitless power and influence of a king (Deut 17:17).
Reasons for Plural Marriage
Plural marriage, despite much of the hostility against it, does carry with it some interesting positives.
It promotes the expansion of humanity and the fulfillment of God’s command to “be fruitful and multiple” (Genesis 9:7). This, of course, fits nicely with the Mormon practice of polygamy: to produce beings who will one day populate the patriarch’s new earth when he becomes a god in his own right. It is the argument of polygamy for procreation.
It also promotes the having of children to the childless. We see this argument played out in Genesis 16:1-4, when Sarah gives her maidservant to her husband as a surrogate. The same was the case for Jacob and his two wives in Genesis 30:3-9.
It also provided the best possible chance for the husband to produce a male heir, especially if the husband possessed property of significance. This is not at all necessarily in today’s western culture, but it does frequently go hand in hand with #2.
There is a modern case for plural marriage: that the individuals simply “fell in love.” Many in such circumstances site that they were neither looking for such a relationship or knew much about it until it happened. It usually starts with a monogamous couple who are just as happy (or unhappy) as everyone else and they meet a third person by happenstance and a relationship naturally develops. As the patriarch of the popular polygamy show on television today “Sister Wives” states in the opening credits, “Love should be multiplied not divided.”
Another benefit of plural marriage is found in Ecclesiastes 4:9-12. Interestingly enough, it does use the example of two individuals being better than one, and a “threefold cord is not quickly broken.” But this is exponentially applied in a plural marriage relationship as the whole group benefits, at least in theory, from the many hands available for labor in the home economy.
The last reason sometimes given in support of plural marriage is its curbing nature of the wandering male eye and often substantial sex drive. It is said having multiple partners can keep a man home who would otherwise be tempted to cheat.
Risks of Plural Marriage
It can’t be ignored, though, that there are certainly some risks associated with Plural Marriage, if not some very significant land mines. The Bible states only one, for fear that his heart will be turned away” (Deut 17:17), but there are others that need to be discussed.
The biggest risk associated with polygamy and polyamory is that the multiplicity of wives will so divide the husband between them that he will simply forsake his devotion to God.
As stated already, the greatest fear found in the Bible concerning plural marriage is that they would lead him from the faith (into other religions). It could be argued that the sheer number of women in a man’s life increases his susceptibility to being led astray.
A variation of the Deut 17:17 advice is having multiple wives may go to a man’s head. He may begin to think too highly of himself, that he is exceptionally capable and a lady’s man, and he might overextend himself to please the women he already has or lure additional ones in his direction.
Favoritism is also commonly cited among those in plural marriages as an issue for some of the members or all of them. This was the case for Rachel and Leah, as well as Sarah and Hagar. If the husband plays favorites, it will destroy everything they are working towards.
Another argument is that these types of relationships reduce the woman to nothing more than a baby-making machine. They argue that a woman who shares her husband with another woman is short-changing herself, is ruining her future prospects, and is jeopardizing the wellbeing of her children.
This argument often goes along with #5, in that a woman who is involved in the relationship as a second or third “wife” is setting herself up in the future if her relationship breaks up. There are no legal protections for those in a “Spiritual Union,” and the fickleness and lack of commitment both in and out of the Church when it comes to relationships and marriage, means there is exponentially greater risk of breakup today.
Bitterness is also a difficulty often confessed among those in such relationships. Whether it is regret over the choices they’ve made (no longer in love with all the people in the relationship), or regret at having children, or regret in not pursuing a career or education, etc. It can all add up quickly and is only magnified when there are more than two people in a relationship.
On a practical side, there is also just the sheer limitation of financial practicalities that will limit the number of wives an individual can adequately support. This may be why there was a limit set for kings in Deut 17:17 because of their potentially unlimited influence and financial resources, they might amass a harem that would be otherwise unattainable by any common person.
Lastly, the greatest pitfall of polygamy and more certainly polyamory is the precedent it sets for others, as well as the undue scrutiny it would bring within the modern Christian context. 1 Co 10:23 tells us that we are not to “seek our own, but each one the other’s wellbeing.” Even that which is lawful for me or permissible for me does not mean it is beneficial or that it edifies the body of Christ. Paul goes on to say in 1 Co 10:31-33, “Give no offense…to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they might be saved.” Putting the church and her individual members above your own needs and interests is paramount. Hypothetically, if I were to pursue a polyamorous marriage, it would cause a great deal of disruption, hurt feelings, and calamity within our families, among our adult children, most certainly within the local church we currently serve in (and would most certainly be censured by leadership if not asked to leave altogether). Very few modern Christian churches today would accept a plurality of wives in a marriage relationship.
Following the Laws of the Land
Unfortunately, for the Christian polygamist or polyamorist, the rejection of such a relationship is almost immediately found in Scripture under the requirement to obey the common laws of the land. As explained by Paul in Romans 13:1-7, Christians are responsible to “…submit to the governing authorities…” A quick search will uncover that both forms of plural marriage are actually outlawed in every State in the US and throughout much of the world. This near global prohibition was enacted over the years to fight primarily against bigamy (the holding of two or more legal marriage licenses) and especially so in Idaho, Utah, Canada, Texas, and Arizona to fight against Mormon strongholds that still practice their forms of polygamy and its reign in its subsequent abuses. Along with the above reference from Paul, so too do we find the same kind of instruction to obey all secular and ecclesiastical authorities in Titus 3:1-3; 1 Pet. 2:13-14; and He 13:17.
So, in essence, the question is answered before it really has a chance to even begin. To be a practicing polygamist or polyamorist, you would either be guilty of disobeying the “ruling authorities” placed over you, or you are a married man who has led himself and his legal wife into a heterodoxical relationship with one or more other women that are not (at least legally) considered your wife (wives). Because of this, the husband would be guilty of either rebellion or fornication, and/or also adultery against all the women in which he is involved, especially his legal wife.
This is no different for ecclesiastical authorities who are called to an even higher standard than a typical saint, where multiple times in the New Testament, the issue of monogamy is presented as the prerequisite marital state. In Eph 5:22-33 and Col 3:18-19 both, we see the participants being referred to as “husband” or “wife” not a plurality of “husband and wives,” and this is especially true for the qualifications of elder in 1 Ti 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6, where husbands are expected to be μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα “a one woman man.” This is very possibly an indirect reference to polygamy itself, but such conclusions are unclear.
Is it Polyamory or Adultery?
But, the question still begs: Is polygamy or polyamory actually sin? Since we determined it is impossible to legally marry more than one person at the same time pretty much anywhere in the world (as of yet, this will change in the near future in the West), we will be referring from here forward to the relationship that has only one set of individuals legally married and the rest in “spiritual unions” or no one actually legally married to anyone in the relationship and all joined through “spiritual union.”
That being said, the first challenge arises, obviously, from the first objection stated above: the illegality of plural marriage, for if no one in the relationship is actually married then all are committing fornication and all who are looking at the women in the relationship with lust are also committing adultery against them.
The only way to determine if polyamory is a sin is by providing a definitional analysis of several terms: fornication, adultery, and marriage itself.
Definitions of Fornication, Adultery, and Marriage
Is fornication any kind of sexual interaction outside of the bounds of marriage? Is adultery imputed for any sexual deviance from the legal marital bed? Is there such a thing as “spiritual unions” and, if so, are they considered binding in the Bible?
Let’s handle each term in turn:
Fornication is somewhat more straightforward than the other two, though not entirely. To look at a woman in lust Jesus clearly concluded was adultery (Matt 5:28). In his judgment (and it is his opinion that really matters at all) the only legitimate avenue for pursuing a sexual relationship was through marriage (1 Co 7:3). This, of course, tells us that marriage(es) must be legitimate at least in the eyes of God for polyamory to be legitimate.
So what is the definition of marriage? Is it the ceremony? The commitment? The vows made before God? The license with the state? Jesus clearly delineated between married and non-married people in the example at the well. In John 4:16-18, we see the woman interacting with Jesus while she was getting water. She asks how she can get the living water he was offering and Jesus tells her to go get her husband and return. She replies that she had no husband. Jesus says she is correct, that she’s actually had five husbands and the current man she was in an intimate relationship with was not her husband at all. It appears as if, at least in Jesus’ mind, this woman was committing fornication with the one she was with. Was she simply shacking up with a man as a means of convenience? Did they not go through the proper paperwork with the State? Had she divorced one or more of her previous husbands for reasons other than infidelity?
Unfortunately, we are not given details by which to determine the litmus test Jesus used here. Though, he does seem to consider her first five marriages to be legitimate.
The authors of both the Old and New Testaments seem to simply assume their readers know the definitions of the terms in question. The Greek word πορνεία is typically used with some grammatical variation for fornication or “sexual immorality” or “harlotry.” While this was sternly condemned by the Mosaic law (Lev. 21:9; 19:29; Deut. 22:20, 21, 23–29; 23:18; Ex. 22:16), it was also intrinsically tied to μοιχεύω (adultery) and this seems to carry a much graver weight then does simple fornication in that adultery was against the vow one made to God. Fornication (or more specifically, harlotry) had the potential of producing an offspring without knowledge of the father’s identity. For this and for adultery the sentence was death (Deut 22:25-27), but the individual who committed simple fornication (rather than habitual fornication or adultery) were simply fined and required to be married (Deut 22:28-29). Jesus changed the punishment for adultery during his ministry in John 8:4-11, but the definitions likewise grew more stringent. As already mentioned, adultery became a thing of the heart and fornication and adultery both were to be shunned by the Christian, especially he who was vowed to someone in marriage (He 13:4).
The Pharisees saw all sexual acts as fornication, which we can see from their definition in John 8:41 when they suggested Jesus was the product of his mother’s infidelity. This, of course, immediately brings to mind the hypocrisy of Judah with Tamar in Genesis 38:24, for the Pharisees were anything but perfect when it came to keeping the whole of the law.
Adding to the already cryptic and convoluted definition, we find all three words frequently used to indicate a spiritual kind of betrayal, an abandonment of right belief in the living God or the committing of harlotry with idols or other gods (Isaiah 1:2; Jer 2:20; Ezek 16; Hos 1:2; 2:1-5; Jer 3:8-9; Re 14:8; 17:2; 4; 18:3; 9; 19:2; He 12:16). And we also find many instances of the words being used simply in list form where no definition is provided at all (Matt 15:19; Mark 7:21; 2 Co 12:21; Ga 5:19; Col 3:5; 1 Co 6:9; Eph 5:5; 1 Ti 1:10).
In Matt 5:32ff and Matt 19:6, Jesus laid out the most difficult of pills to swallow for humanity. His view of marriage and the rights and responsibilities therein, of which, upon hearing, his disciples concluded, “if such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry:”
1. Divorce is not allowed under any circumstances save for a cheating spouse. To divorce for any other reason caused everyone involved to commit adultery.
2. When two are brought together they become one flesh; man should not separate that which God has brought together.
In this new command, Jesus weighs heavily on the authority of Genesis.
Genesis 2:24 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
Though at first glance this appears to be straight forward, there is actually an argument from the text itself for possible plural marriage, in that it does not specifically state the total number of individuals involved in the marriage. Yet, interestingly enough, Jesus and Paul both (Matt 19:5; Mark 10:8; 1 Co 6:16; Eph 5:31), in quoting this passage, do define the total as “two.” Where do they get this from if not from the Hebrew text that we so often use? They were actually reading and quoting from the Septuagint.
Genesis 2:24 “For this reason a man will leave behind his father and his mother and will cleave to his wife, and the two will be as one flesh.”
The argument that the Bible does not limit the number of individuals in the marital union is clearly incorrect in light of the LXX. Jesus harkened back to this verse as the benchmark “from the beginning it was not so” in defining marriage in light of divorce (Matt 19:8). The text does the same thing for us in disqualifying plural marriage as well.
What Then About Same Sex Marriage?
But, if we had not already disqualified polygamy and polyamory on the grounds that Christians must submit to the secular authorities and on the grounds that the total number of individuals allowed in the marital union is two, could it be possible, as our culture today seems to insist, that marriage could be not only a plurality but also non-heterosexual?
This question must be asked specifically in light of the popularity of polyamory today, as already defined as a relationship of one man with at least two women (but it could be any combination of man and woman or even three or more women or three or more men) where not only is the man involved sexually with both women but both women are involved sexually with each other. If polygamy were acceptable, would this extend to polyamory as well, even though at least part of the relationship is engaged in same sex activities?
I would argue the answer is a resounding “no” for the following reason:
Homosexuality is strictly forbidden in the Old and New Testament combined, which would preclude any kind of three way relationship that was exclusively one gender (1 Co 6:9-10; Ro 1:26-27; Lev 18:22; Jude 7; Ge 19:6-7).
With that said, there is one possible argument to be made that a man can enter into a polyamorous relationship with two or more women and still have the two women sexually involved with each other as long as they do not μεταλλάσσω “exchange” the “natural use [of the man] for what is against nature [a woman using a woman exclusively].” But, in order to do so, the definition of marriage would have to include “spiritual unions” and even still, there is no way to get around the violation of “submitting to secular authorities” which has sunk the polyamorous ship before it even left dry dock.
What Really Constitutes Marriage
As we’ve already seen, Jesus clearly delineated the line between legitimate marriage and everything else. If “spiritual unions” were legitimate, it is most likely that there would have been no distinction made for the woman at the well, between her previous five marriages and her current relationship. They were certainly engaged in a sexual relationship. It is possible to argue that they were not living together, or they were “on again, off again,” but there is really no way to tell.
It is interesting that in some Christian circles, “spiritual unions” were promoted popularly as a means of maintaining a separation between church and state. After all, there was no civil ceremony, no licensing requirements in biblical times, right? The closest thing we have in the Old Testament to a marriage ceremony is the intention of Isaac to make Rebekah his wife, where he “took her into his mother Sarah’s tent; and he took Rebekah and she became his wife” (Gen 24:67; Song 8:2). This not only limits the power of pre-marital sex prohibitions, but also shatters the requirement of a marriage ceremony altogether. By the time of Jesus, traditions were not much different, save for a celebration feast marking the occasion (John 2:1; Lu 14:8; Matt 25:10).
I can only assume those Christians who did not file for a marriage license, but instead opted to enter into spiritual unions would not extend the “authenticity” of their unions to those who would desire polyamorous ones.
Regardless, though, the issue is mute, since plural marriage is rendered illegitimate based on the grounds of having no legal allowance at the time of this writing. If, in the future, plural marriage is legalized in individual States or throughout the entire United States, then objection would be found on the shaky ground of “spiritual unions” legitimacy alone. And for this there is some Scriptural support as well as practical applications in the modern times.
But, if “spiritual unions” are not considered “legal” in the eyes of God, those who enter into polygamous or polyamorous relationships would simply be committing fornication or adultery against each other or their legal spouse. In the end, at least concerning this point, the individual must make up his or her own mind alone before God (Ro 14:5). We have been warned: be careful not to condemn yourself in what you approve (Ro 14:22; He 10:31).
Conclusions
We have covered a lot of ground in this article, from polygamy in biblical times, to polyamorous relationships in the modern world, to the demands from same sex couples (or throuples) to be legitimized and affirmed by both the world and the church.
We set out to answer two questions: first, is it biblically acceptable for a man to have two or more wives and still be considered an orthodox Christian? And second, if the first question is affirmed, is it possible for a Christian man to pursue a polyamorous relationship with two or more women or must they conform to the stricter polygamous standard?
The first question was quelled by the requirement for Christians to obey all secular and ecclesiastical rules and laws. This means that, regardless of the individuals possible views or desires concerning plural marriage, there is simply no avenue currently to practice it.
But, in playing devil’s advocate, we continued in answering the second question, presuming that at some point in the future it will be legal to marry more than one person at a time, and found that there are some arguments to support plural marriage – even polyamory, where couples are involved in same sex behaviors as long as they abide by the stipulation that they do not “abandon” the natural use of the opposite sex entirely.
Despite this, we also concluded that plural marriage in the current context of the church would be, overall, quite damaging to the individual’s witness, and station within the church itself. If one chose to pursue such relationships, they would surely meet with pushback from clergy, other parishioners, and if in leadership themselves, and would most likely be removed from their position.
In the end, we concluded that, despite some possible avenues for pursuing a plural marriage relationship might exist, the end would require too great a cost to be worthwhile. While there are some definite benefits to be had, these are not as important as they used to be and the negative aspects quickly overtake all who are involved.
It is not an excuse to say polygamy is necessary to prevent a man from using pornography or from cheating on his wife. He should throw himself on the mercy of the Father and prostrate himself before the feet of Christ and remove all temptation from his daily life (Mark 9:43) rather than make a bad situation even worse.
In light of all that has been discussed in this article, what is needed is probably more prayer, fasting, and surrendering to our Lord and Savior Jesus who is the Christ, rather than the enlargement of more marriages. But to each one, they must ultimately give an account to God in what they do. I pray whatever choice is made, whatever direction one pursues, each will be fully convinced in their own mind (Ro 14:5-12). It would be terrible, in the end, to find that you have been fighting against God (Acts 5:39).
As for the Browns, I was disappointed and a little disillusioned to hear of their ultimate demise. But, in the end, I’m not surprised. This whole subject reminds me of what a young woman in the military told me one Saturday afternoon when I found her in a presumed paradise doing litter patrol. I told her I was looking to accept a job in the little village of Garmisch at the foothills of the German Alps. I’ll never forget the look on her face when she just smiled and said, “Not all that glitters is gold.” I see the concept of polyamory and polygamy to be very much the same as that potential job in paradise. Sometimes we need to be careful what we wish for because we might just get it and what we end up might be more than we actually bargained for.
Until my next assignment….
Please consider supporting my writing, my unschooled studies, and my hermitic lifestyle by purchasing one or more of my books. I’m not supported by academia or have a lucrative corporate job – I’m just a mystical modern-day hermit trying to live out the life I believe God has called me to. So, any support you choose to provide is GREATLY appreciated.
Excerpt from Our Daughter:
“Okay, mom,” Randy said.
“You behave yourself and be nice. You’re lucky to have company while you wait for the doctors.”
The woman turned and started back the way she came.
“The nurse said it would be twenty or thirty more minutes, so we’ll eat quick and be back up here before they take you in, okay?”
“Okay, mom.”
“Sorry for him,” the woman said to Katie as she walked by.
“He’s funny.”
Katie grinned.
As the woman left, Katie noticed the boy moving around again on the bed. Before she realized what was happening, the tiny lump disappeared and she could hear the faint sound of bare hands and feet on the tile floor.
He was low crawling under the beds toward her.
A moment later, Randy popped his head out from under the nearest hospital bed, craning his neck around to look up at her.
“Hello, there,” Katie said.
Randy disappeared back under the bed, the bed sheet draping down almost to the floor. Katie could still see three little fingers pressed to the tile.
“What are you here for?” Katie asked, readjusting her seat in the chair, trying to get the ache in her chest to lessen.
For whatever reason, the wheelchair was really uncomfortable.
“Why are – “
Randy’s voice trailed off for a moment as he looked around.
“Why are you here?”
“I’m getting my leg fixed,” Katie said. “See?”
Randy poked his head back out from under the bed and looked at the leg she was pointing to.
“What’s wrong with it?”
“The doctor said it’s broken,” Katie said. “Shattered.”
“Ouch.”
“Yeah. Ouch.”
“Can you feel it?” Randy asked, able to stay out from his hiding place.
“I can feel it, but it’s not too bad,” Katie said, then tapped the IV in her arm. “This thing is giving me medicine of some kind for the pain. At least that’s what the nurses said.”
“Why are you – “
Randy stopped mid-sentence.
He scooted out from under the bed entirely and slowly crept over to er on all fours.
“What are you, some kind of spider?” Katie asked, giggling a little.
“What are you?” Randy echoed.
He was now only about a foot away from her chair and sat there, his legs folded up under him, gawking up at her.
“What are you staring at me for?”
“I’ve never – “
Randy put out a hesitant hand and ever so gently touched her arm.
“Are you some kind of ghost?”
He looked around again.
“Are you – ”
He leaned in, talking in a whisper.
“Are you dead?”
A nurse came around the corner and stopped abruptly, spotting the empty bed in the far corner where Randy should have been.
“Randy Andrews,” the nurse said, her hands now on her hips. “You get right back into the bed and you stop playing around, please. They are ready for you in surgery.”
Katie watched as Randy scrambled on all fours under the beds and back up onto his, pulling the sheet back over top of himself again.
She started to ask him about his question, but couldn’t get the words out before his parents appeared at the door.
Katie sat there quietly, watching Randy stare back at her from under his sheet. She glanced over at his parents and the nurse, noticed Randy’s dad had no hair on the top of his head.
Are you dead?
What kind of question was that?
The snap of the wheel locks being disengaged on Randy’s hospital bed jarred Katie out of the confusion she was in.
The doctor she’d first seen was now at the door, waiting for Randy.
He was his surgeon.
They wheeled Randy out of the room, his parents following right behind, disappearing to the left, heading for his operating room.
The pre-op room was empty again.
Dead.
Are you dead?
What kind of crazy question was that?
The nurse came back through the double doors.
“It won’t be long now,” she said.
“Okay.”
Katie tried not to think about the dull ache growing just behind her sternum.
The nurse disappeared around the corner as Katie watched the double doors to the operating rooms slowly shut.
Buy my book Our Daughter and begin the adventure of a lifetime, as you uncover the mysteries behind Katie Cadora’s new life after the horrible accident that stole her mother away from her. Will she find sure footing again? Will the pain ever stop? Will she discover the secrets her new foster family are keeping from her? Is the boy’s question right? Is Katie Cadora actually dead?
Click here and grab your copy today and jump into this Witch Gnostic Heresy trilogy with both feet!
But, trust me when I tell you, there are deceivers in our midsts! Get started in this bone chilling suspense novel right away and find out why….sometimes….you’re just better off DEAD!
What do you think?