A Theological Treatment of Polyamory

Introduction

In considering the subject of polyamory from a Christian perspective it is important to grasp that what we believe is right or wrong must be tempered and structured with an holistic grasp of the Bible and, in particular, the final and authoritative word of Jesus Christ.  The temptation is ever present to merely ‘cherry-pick’ Biblical passages in order to support personal opinion and refute opinions of those with whom we disagree; sadly a frequent occurrence in most Christian cultures and denominations.  Only with humility, an openness to Scripture (including its warnings against judgementalism), and an acceptance of both liberation and responsibility for self and others can we hope to gain insight into the subject of polyamory and treat it with something resembling theological clarity. 

We need to be aware that what we desire, want or need may not necessarily comply with our responsibilities as Spirit-filled partisans of Jesus Christ.  “All things are permissible,” declares Paul, but he qualifies his statement of liberation with “but not all things are beneficial.” (1 Cor 10:23).  In the same vein, human desires must not be confused with human rights, turning ethical ideals concerning what is and isn’t fair into axioms of what God deems acceptable for his people.  As Christians, we have the remarkable habit of short-circuiting Scripture in order to make it fit what we want.  LGBT Christians in particular tend to be geared to a knee-jerk reaction against offending others, and making allowances for the ‘petitioner’ or ‘complainer’ before considering the impact on a Christ-centred church, where inclusivity and covenantal faithfulness should work in conjunction not in opposition.  For Christians then, the challenge is in understanding the difference between what seems right and fair to us as human beings and what actually benefits us in the right and holy living to which we are called by our Creator and Redeemer.

NB: For the purpose of this paper the terms ‘marriage’ and ‘life-partnership’ are interchangeable.  The Biblical tenets and marital language used apply equally and without difference to both heterosexual and same-sex couples.

Definition and a Brief Overview

The term, polyamory, comes from the Greek πολυ [poly, meaning many or several] and the Latin amor [literally “love”].  According to the Oxford English Dictionary, polyamory is ‘The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual, loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved.’  The key points here are ‘more than one,’ ‘sexual’ and ‘loving.’  Participants in such relationships are involved in one another’s lives in a loving, multi-dimensional fashion; they care for each other and, in one of a variety of permutations, are sexually intimate within the group and sexually faithful to the group dynamics.  Polyamory does not include one night stands, anonymous group sex, serial monogamy or aspects of ‘swinging’ or ‘swapping’ parties.  The abbreviated term poly is sometimes used to describe any form of consensual non-monogamy, or as a form of self-description by a person identifying as participating in or advocating polyamory.  What separates polyamorous relationships from friendships is the term ‘sexual.’  They entail being romantically and/or sexually involved with more than one person at the same time.

Advocates of polyamory disagree regarding whether somebody in a monogamous, sexually and romantically exclusive relationship should be considered polyamorous if they have additional emotionally intimate though non-sexual friendships.  Most monogamous people have close ties to friends and relatives and would in no sense identify themselves as non-monogamous.  However, some people in sexually exclusive relationships but with additional close emotional friendships do self-identify as polyamorous.  Celibate or non-sexual communities, such as monasteries, convents and other religious or humanistic groups living together for a common cause, should not be regarded as polyamoric.  Mutually caring, harmonious groups may be seen as loving, but such relations are ‘philial-based’ or ‘agape-based,’ not ‘eros-based.’  In short, groups focused on the mutual goal of serving God and/or a common good, with an understanding of caring for the welfare of others regardless of feelings are not the same as multiple, simultaneous relationships that involve romance, eroticism and sexual intimacy.     

Nothing New

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” (Eccl 1:9).  The author of Ecclesiastes recognised that the human condition holds few surprises.  This includes the practise of polyamory, which is not a modern day phenomenon.  The French Ménage a Trois (literally, ‘household of three’) and the forerunner of polyamory as understood today, has been recognised since the 18th Century; a prime example being the relationship between Lady Emma Hamilton, her husband and Lord Admiral Nelson, who settled amicably together at Merton Place.  If polygamy and polyandry are included as variations of polyamory, then the practise is ancient indeed.

Polygamy is a well documented and fairly common practice amongst many different cultures, for example, various African states consider multiple wives as equating great wealth.  Other African States, such as Ghana, where the female population far exceeds the male population, polygamy is viewed as simply practical.  Although no longer accepted today by conservative Mormons, breakaway groups in the USA still maintain polygamous relationships.  Islam accepts the practice of polygamy, with a limit of four wives, but rules that a husband must be able to support each wife financially and show complete equity in his consideration towards each one.  Biblically, the Old Testament records various accounts of polygamy practiced by the Patriarchs.       

Polyandry is less heard of as a practice, the best example perhaps being that of the Nyinba, who live in a very rugged area of the Tibetan Himalayas.  There, it is common for a Nepalese woman to have several husbands, as opposed to the man having many wives.  Usually the husbands are all brothers as it is the custom to keep the family together.  Consequently, there is no way to prove that a child belongs to a specific husband and he has no more claim on the child than any other husband; ensuring that land is owned and maintained jointly.  Similarly, by having only one birth mother, the population is managed at a sustainable level.

In the history of the early church it was generally believed that the Bible allowed for polygamy, but for the purpose of procreation and only if the law of the land allowed it.  It was accepted that the Old Testament patriarchs were not sinning by having multiple wives.  Up to the 4th Century, the practise of taking a concubine as an intermediate convenience, before considering marrying an appropriate (and preferably wealthy) woman for career advancement, was common practise across the Roman world for the scholars of the day.  However, it was Augustine of Hippo, a one-time advocate of concubinage, having had a concubine and a son by her in his youth, who concluded in his more mature years that monogamy was the only appropriate relationship for encompassing sexual intimacy.  He declined to judge the patriarchs, but did not construe from their practice an ongoing acceptability of polygamy.  Elsewhere, he wrote, ‘Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living.’ 

During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther advised Philip of Hesse that he should keep his second marriage a secret to avoid public scandal, given a growing understanding that non-monogamous relationships were socially and religiously unacceptable.  However, on a personal note he stated, ‘I confess for my part that if a man wishes to marry two or more wives, I cannot forbid him for it does not contradict the Scripture.’ 
   
The question of polygamy today looms largest in many African societies, appropriately so, it may be culturally argued; certainly Protestant churches are becoming more tolerant in some cases.  Although the Church in Africa considers monogamy as the ideal for the expression of love between two people for life, it concedes that in certain cultures polygamy is socially acceptable, albeit remaining contrary to Christianity.  After a careful study of African polygamy, Archbishop David Gitari of the Anglican Church concluded in 1982 that polygamy, as ideally practiced, is more Christian than divorce and remarriage as far as abandoned wives and children are concerned.    It remains to be seen whether the Church as a whole will conclude African polygamy to be completely acceptable - and therefore blessed - or merely a preferred lesser of two evils.  

Occasionally, polyamory has been attempted on a communal scale.  One such endeavour being the ill-fated 19th Century Oneida Community that sprang up in upstate New York.  Loosely based on the theories of the French socialist Charles Fourier, it lasted from 1848 to 1880 and was guided by the views of its founder and leader, John Humphrey Noyes, who preached a Perfectionist style of Christianity and believed he could do no wrong.  In his work, Without Sin: The Life and Death of the Oneida Community, Spencer Klaw relates, “Noyes became the hub of a group of men and women, eventually numbering about 300, who saw monogamy as impure and group love as the means of ushering in the millennium.  They thought God demanded variety in every facet of life, including sex.  To overcome what they regarded as the ‘sin of monogamy’, they called for the continual change of partners under the supervision of Noyes.”  Possessiveness and jealousy among its members competing for sex, young members growing tired of being assigned older lovers they often found undesirable, and a host of other emotional strains, including Noyes’ preference for 12 to 13 year old girls, inevitably contributed to the community's demise.  As Klaw points out, the surprising thing is not that Oneida failed but that it lasted beyond thirty years.

With this somewhat brief dip into cultural and historical aspects, I want to now turn specifically to a Christian theological exploration of polyamory.

Old Testament

The history of the old Testament records various accounts of polygamy, including: Lamech having at least two wives, Adah and Zillah (Gen 4:23); Similarly Esau, with Adah and Oholibamah (Gen 36:2); Jacob having four wives, Rachel, Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah (Gen 30:1-9); David married Michal (1 Sam 18:27), Ahinoam (1 Sam 25:43) and Abigail (1 Sam 27:3), then later in Jerusalem he had a number of [unnamed] wives and concubines (2 Sam 5:13) and also married Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:24); Solomon allegedly had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3); Rehoboam, eighteen wives and sixty concubines (2 Chron 11:21); and Abijah, fourteen wives (2 Chron 13:21).  However, these appear to be the exception rather than the standard way of life for the Hebrews and are associated with tribal leadership or royalty, rather than general social practise. 

It is more common to find the Old Testament referring to having one spouse or partner.  Even the less-than-cheerful author of Ecclesiastes has an appreciation for monogamy:  “Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life,” he exhorts (Eccl 9:9).  Indeed, the Old Testament discourages multiple partners as a practise: even referring to Israel’s (future) king, the advice is, “He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray” (Deut 17:17).  Joseph was clearly appalled by the offer of sexual intimacy from Potiphar’s wife, “No one is greater in this house than I am.  My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife.  How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?" (Gen 39:9).  A similar sentiment is found in Proverbs, “Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being scorched?  So is he who sleeps with another man's wife; no one who touches her will go unpunished.” (Prov 6:28-29).


Jeremiah likens Israel’s idolatry and unfaithfulness to divorcees sexually involved after re-marriage to others, “ ‘If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again?  Would not the land be completely defiled?  But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers - would you now return to me?’ declares the LORD.” (Jer 3:1).  Similarly, Malachi points to life-partners belonging to God, “Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his.”  The prophet continues, encouraging faithfulness and commitment to the relationship, “So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth” (Mal 2:15).
 
We know that David had wives, concubines and (difficult to refute) a male lover in Jonathan.  However, his actions concerning relationships were berated solely when he deliberately manipulated circumstances to gain Bathsheba, over whom David had lusted for some time.  Samuel accuses David, “Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes?  You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own” (2 Sam 12:9).  Despite this, David is regarded by God as, “… a man after my own heart” (1 Sam 13:14; Acts 13:22).  Could this imply that David’s multiple relationships were wholly acceptable, providing a Biblical argument in favour of polyamory, or was David’s situation culturally particular to him as Israel’s King, thus simply unique and therefore tolerable?  As much as it would be helpful towards a dialogue concerning polyamory to conclude that this does set a precedent for acceptability, or even that the jury is out either way, in the light of the Hebrew Scriptures and culture, the likeliest conclusion is that, as King, David’s situation was unique and not a standard of commonality.

Polygynous (remarried divorcees still involved with their ex spouse, as referred to in Jer 3:1) and polygamous relationships are frequent in the Old Testament, so a conclusive argument for restricting life partnerships to two and only two, based solely on FT teaching, is not easy to construct  -  a cursory reading of the opening chapters of 1 Chronicles is enough to confirm this.  Some therefore advocate the dissolution of monogamy altogether as the norm for intimate and committed relationships, regarding it as a patriarchal invention.  They hold that monogamy culturally oppressed women, treating them as chattel, and therefore has no real grounds for followers of Jesus Christ today, living under grace and not under Torah.  Sadly this is an extreme reaction against ancient cultural ideals rather than a theological treatment of the subject matter; and while we may understand, even sympathise with the argument, such a position succeeds only in throwing the theological baby out with the historical bathwater.  It misses entirely the Biblical dynamics of covenantal commitment, faithfulness and joy promoted by the OldTestament concerning marriage, reflecting faithfulness to God, and representing his image within the confines of two people building a mutually loving partnership and expressing the creativity and erotic love of sexual intimacy.     

New Testament

If we confess Jesus as Lord, then it is Christ who holds the final and authoritative word for us on all aspects of living as far as socio-cultural changes and developments affect us.  However, as mentioned previously, we must guard against selectively choosing what Christ says and declaring it either general or specific to suit our opinions  -  he tended to make clear whether he was generalising or being specific, even when speaking metaphorically.  So what does Jesus say about intimate relationships?
 
Jesus expands the definition of love to include ‘neighbour’ and ‘enemies’ alike.  In short we are called to recognise human solidarity and equality before God (philia) and love everyone in the sense of being committed to their welfare regardless of feelings (agape).  However, he narrows the definition of acceptable sexual intimacy (eros) to embrace only one other person for life.  Regarding divorce and remarriage, Jesus recognises that Mosaic Law permitted a man to divorce his wife and remarry (Deut 24:1-4; cf. Lev 21:7, 14; Deut 21:14; Jer. 3:1).  He interprets this as a concession to the hardness of people’s (primarily men’s) hearts, and consequently revokes the law in favour of a greater precedent established “from the beginning of creation” (Mk 10:6; Matt 19:8).  In so doing, Jesus dissolves the Mosaic permission - it was never a mandate - of polygamy for men.  This can be supported on two counts:

Firstly, in commenting on divorce and remarriage Jesus emphasises the number of people involved  -  two.  He reaffirms the declaration that “the two shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24) and concludes, “so they are no longer two but one flesh” (Mk 10:8; Matt. 19:5-6).  A union of two in a sexual relationship is thus not only necessary for establishing sexual wholeness but also sufficient for doing so; additional sexual partners are therefore superfluous and adulterous.  If, in Jesus’ view, this dynamic of two applies in the case of divorce and remarriage, where the husband believes he has dissolved the previous union, then it certainly applies in cases of polygyny (where the husband acknowledges the union with his first wife as remaining intact), polygamy and - no less importantly - as an axiom for same-sex life partners.

Secondly, Jesus declares that a man who “divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her,” because the first marriage, in his understanding, remains intact (Mk 10:11; cf. Lk 16:18).  Under Mosaic Law, a man committed adultery only if he had intercourse with another man’s wife.  Consequently, the offence was against the other man, not his own wife.  By pronouncing the man’s acquisition of a second wife an offence against the first wife, whether through remarriage following divorce or by polygyny, Jesus declares a wife’s claim on her husband’s monogamy to be as legitimate as the husband’s claim on her.  More than this, however, Jesus goes further concerning the standard of moral outlook he requires of his followers.  There is a self-developed human trait of believing we can think what we like and fantasise what we like as long as we don’t actually do it.  Christ destroys this assumption when speaking of murder and sexual behaviour (Mt 5:21, 27-28) by declaring that if we think of murdering someone in our hearts, it is no different from committing murder; likewise, if we lust after someone in our hearts, it is no different from being an adulterer.  Interestingly, he makes no distinction concerning single or married people when referring to adultery in this context; something we swiftly forget or ignore.  Whichever way we cut it, Christians are called to a higher level of sexual moral responsibility than is accepted by society in general.

In his paper, Proleptic Sexual Love: God's Promiscuity Reflected in Christian Polyamory, presented in 2004, Robert E. Goss of Webster University argues, "In the communion of saints, promiscuous love is a given; the exclusivity of earthly, marital relationships are superseded by an inclusive vision of love.  Thus, the Christian tradition of the asexual or celibate Christ has sheltered and even blinded us to the erotic and polyamorous reality of Christ as bridegroom."  Goss acknowledges the value of committed life-unions within the Christian community, but he wants to explore the ethical and theological possibility for those Christianswhose sexual lives fall outside monogamous relationships.  He concludes, "Christian religious communities, with their erotic and polyamorous relationships, symbolise the breadth of God’s inclusive and promiscuous love."  Goss claims that since Christ himself is the paradigm for multi-partnered relationships within religious communities, then perhaps this could be a basis for rethinking non-monogamous relationships. 

Goss takes seriously the idea of restoring an eschatological basis for rethinking sexual relationships.  Unfortunately, his exegesis of Scripture leaves a great deal to be desired.  His statement concerning early church interpretation of Christ’s inclusive love as embracing promiscuity is based solely on textual wordplay and has little historical support.  In the same vein, his references to ‘God’s inclusive and promiscuous love’ bear no relation to a theological understanding, across the Scriptural spectrum, of God’s faithfulness and commitment.  Inclusive love, yes; even unconditional; but promiscuous?  In attempting to justify human sexual promiscuity by saying it better represents the breadth and depth of God’s love, he stands on somewhat thin theological and historical ice negating, as he does, any reference to or application of Christians living by a far higher moral standard than generally reflected by society, to the point of martyrdom.  Similarly, to present Christ as the paradigm for multi-partnered relationships, misses entirely the point of Christ’s command to “love one another as I have loved you,” which relates to having an agape love and regard to the extreme of death, not an erotic love resulting in varieties of sexual union.  Goss may provide some serious points for dialogue and debate but he sadly makes that all too common Christian mistake of short-circuiting Scripture in order to make it fit what he feels is right.

Following Christ’s words, the principle of monogamy may be presumed in Paul’s discussions of marriage, particularly 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul refers directly to Jesus’ ruling (1 Cor 7:10-11).  This is significant for establishing Paul’s understanding that sexual relationships belong exclusively within a framework of two and only two, whether the dynamic is applied to heterosexual or same-sex partners.  It is also worth noting, here, that Paul refers simply to ‘wife’ and ‘husband’ throughout his discourse.  He does not refer to ‘wives’ or ‘husbands,’ nor does he specify ‘one wife’ or ‘one husband’ within a given situation thus suggesting that in a different situation Paul might concede multiple relationships to be affirmed and acceptable for Christian living.  This is precisely the stance taken by polyamory advocates referring to Paul’s pronouncement that, for men with specific jobs/tasks in the church, each one needs to be “the husband of but one wife” (1 Tim 3:2, 1 Tim 3:12, Tit 1:6); they purport that Paul simply recognises how someone with more than one spouse or partner would have far less time to give the church than someone with only one.  However, such an argument must be read into the text since it is not stated, and if this really is what Paul is implying, then why not appoint someone single and thus completely free to dedicate all their time to the church?

Jay E. Johnson of Richmond University, California writes in Trinitarian Tango: Divine Perichoretic Fecundity in Polyamorous Relations, "Christian traditions abruptly stop short of applying this Trinitarian logic to human sexuality.  It is well worth asking whether polyamorous sexual relations reflect the 'imago Dei' - indeed, the 'imago Trinitate' - better than the dyadic model of romantic love, commonly constructed as the Christian ideal."  This is, perhaps, the least credible argument for polyamory from a Christian perspective.  It begins and ends with God being viewed as a threesome and thus concludes human threesomes better reflect the Trinity.  There is no construction of the nature, work or persons of the Trinity as revealed through Scripture, nor is there a recognition of the Trinity being a communion of One, rather than a community of Three.  It is a premise based solely upon human reasoning with only a cursory reference to theological implications.  ‘Trinitarian logic’, as Johnson puts it, is a misleading term which humanises God for the purpose of presenting the intimacy of the Triune relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being no different from an intimate relationship between three or more human beings.  Unfortunately, for anyone attempting to use the Triune intimacy of God as a basis for advocating polyamorous relationships, the Trinity is for us, at best, mystery and - forgive my simplistic point - two parts Spirit, one part Incarnation, in complete harmony and absolute agreement of will, faultless in knowledge, without hindrance of resentment, envy, or jealousy, knowing only eternal joy, love, peace and contentment.  I doubt even the finest of human relationships could begin to claim to reflect that.     

I have attempted to show from the wealth of Biblical reference available that, while Old Testament history reveals at least a tolerance of multiple sexual relationships, the New Testament, and most pertinently Christ’s teaching, narrows the goalposts concerning what is and is not acceptable regarding romantic and sexual relationships.  Whichever way we view it, the rejection of multiple relationships as acceptable for Christians seems clear and, while we may argue for the overwhelming commandment of Christ to love, this nevertheless goes hand-in-hand with a call to holy living and a consequent higher moral standard than may be dictated to by human want and desire.    

Post-Biblical Tradition and Sexual Revolution

The question of how our sexual relationships ought to be expressed as Christians today is important and should not be neglected.  We also need to ask what our experience as human sexual beings tell us about how we read Scripture, interpret Biblical tradition and attempt to live out the meanings of the gospel. However, such questions are beneficial only when they move us towards finding a clear, consistent and authoritative sexual ethic in Scripture and tradition, without falling into the trap of treating Biblical sexual issues merely as cultic and therefore no longer binding, rather than as moral guidelines and commands to be taken seriously on the road of mature discipleship.  Superficial Biblical scholarship reaches the conclusion of Walter Wink that, ‘There is no Biblical sex ethic. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period.’ 

Post-Biblical tradition does provide unambiguous guidance but unfortunately, selective use of tradition is almost as common as selective use of Scripture and the crossroads where modern Christianity and sexuality meet are marked more by what is prohibited than what is permitted.  However, this past century has seen a great deal of work offered to expand the narrow definitions of recognisably appropriate sexual behaviour for Christians.  For example, we see the relative ease with which many Christians now divorce and re-marry; and vital work continues with reference to same-sex relationships.  Even so, the real revolution will spring from the realisation that quality in sexual relationships is rooted in meanings and values; and it is here that polyamory, as a relationship option for Christians, fails upon closer scrutiny.

The single, uniform point advocates of polyamory make (be they anthropologist, sociologist or theologian) is that monogamy fails because it is an unliveable ideal - the answer is polyamory.  Monogamy is unrealistic, while polyamory is realistic.  Tristan Taormino, a sex educator and lecturer, is one such voice: “One of the reasons relationships fail is because we do have unrealistic expectations going into them, fuelled by myths about ‘the one’ true love who’s going to be our everything.  Polyamorous people recognise this fallacy and respect each person’s capabilities and limits when it comes to what they can give . . . poly people have multiple relationships so as to fulfil more of their sexual and emotional needs.” 

I want to point out that while monogamy does inevitably fail for those who enter into it with unrealistic views and selfish attitudes, successful monogamy is grounded in good communication and mutual understanding.  This is not a realisation of fallacy but an acceptance of the need to grow and mature through the downs as well as the ups.  Those who decide to settle for quantity may argue, like singles players in tennis, they can have a great experience with their partners without any commitment to each other beyond the rules of the game.  However, I want to challenge the assumption that we can or should guide our policy by sexual pleasure, or shape policy to include whatever makes us sexually and emotionally content.

The revolution we need is the one based on lessons learned from divorce (recognised in law or not; heterosexual or same-sex) undergone by married persons.  Couples who live in the same house but misjudge or ignore each other’s values become alienated; their sex life diminishes, becoming perfunctory because they have nothing more to say to each other.  Marriage-gone-wrong very quickly creates hatred precisely because spouses want so much with and from each other at the outset.  Marriage requires tremendous courage: courage to face failure in attempting to nurture the kind of love that produces mutual understanding and acceptance and, when understanding and acceptance fail, courage to forgive.  What those who think of marriage as an ‘artificial social arrangement’ fail to see is that artificiality actually takes place when persons seek the joys of union without the risks of developing a mature partnership and mutual love.  We might say that if the tints of white and black marry with a commitment to mutual communication and understanding, then what results is a well-crafted and beautiful chessboard.  Without that mutual commitment to develop and grow together, what results is something sludgy grey and a total mess.

Marriage can certainly create hate and break lives when entered into naively or selfishly.  But when entered into with awareness and honesty it becomes the crucible in which sex and love, rooted in mutual communication, remain creative as both partners work to make something of their lives together.  We may quote tongue-in-cheek the proverb, “Marriage is made in heaven but forged in hell” but curiously, therein lies great truth.  Life-partners, committed to mutual understanding and communication, will always find those events that produce greater strength, deeper commitment and growing respect and consideration are the crises, tragedies and difficult times we all face (to one degree or another) as part of the human condition.  Sadly, for some, it is the other side of the human condition, the selfish and cowardly side, that dictates running away or giving up the moment things get difficult - hence my point that it is not monogamy that fails, but rather the ideals and attitudes taken into monogamy.  Interestingly enough, many of the critics of monogamy, who favour polyamory and will quickly point out, "look at how many marriages are on the rocks,"  fail to note how many of their alternate routes fail just as surely.  We need those who are committedly and creatively married to speak up.  They are the real ones who can relate whether sex still has the same quality after twenty or more years together as it had in the early years, whether they still view one another with that ‘Wow! Factor’ and whether their partnership means something immense and precious rather than the dull security of what is merely familiar. 

There is no doubt that, being created in the image of God as embodied, sexual beings, human sexuality is part of God’s creation, viewed by God as “very good” and affirmed as such throughout the Scriptures.  The question for Christians is whether or not sexual intimacy expressed in polyamoric relationships is a valid form of holy living for a people called to follow Jesus Christ.  It remains clear that the majority do not feel the ability to ‘be in love’ with more than one other person (or at least, one other person at a time), nor do they believe such a position to be appropriate.  Some, however, do and this raises the question of whether a polyamoric approach towards intimate relations is a legitimate way of being for a Christian, or should it be viewed as an invention to circumvent more traditional perceptions in order to make multiple sexual activities feel more important, substantial and, in simple terms, right?

It’s a Love Thing!

I want to bring in some opinions from public websites, ‘blogs’ that are fairly typical of comments made by those who have experienced polyamory relationships at some or other level.  The sites are accessible to anyone, but out of respect for people’s privacy here, I have excluded names etc.

“Technically, polyamory actually seems far more 'natural' to me than not.  Let’s face it, even when we're madly in love with someone, and committed to them 112%, it doesn't stop you from being attracted (or even infatuated) with other people.”

“Today, I found out that I am a child from a polyamarous relationship.  I won't bore you with the details, but basically my mum married Man One, as she was in love with him.  But she was also in love with Man Two.  Man One was very good friends with Man Two, as Man Two was like a mutual friend between Man One and my mother.  There was just sex involved with his relationship with my mother, but Man One knew and was ok with this.  Turns out, I look different and act a little different to my 3 other siblings (two older, one younger) because there is a very large possibility that Man Two is actually my biological father.”

“One friend of mine did the whole polyamory thing for a long time.  She had a pregnancy scare and I was one of the potential fathers.  She wasn't pregnant (thank GOD!).  Similarly, another friend of mine did the polyamory thing.  She got pregnant and did not know who the father was.  She narrowed it down to three, then two and then one after she had the baby.  I tried the whole polyamory thing.  Frankly, I can't do it.  It lead to a lot of heartache and jealousy and that very unpleasant pregnancy scare, not to mention having given up quality for numbers and me not forgiving myself.” 

“I have a friend who defines polyamory.  She and her boyfriend moved in with a third chick who continued dating outside the relationship for a while.  My friend at one point dated him, another guy and another girl.  It's at the point now where if he passes away (he has cancer), her first child will be his, biologically, assuming she marries her other boyfriend.  This is twisted, even by my standards.”

“As far as I’m concerned you don’t have to explain yourself at all, or answer to anyone.  If you're happy, your feelings require no justification.  It's a mistake to try to reconcile what you feel with a social classification, because the classification may not really suit you.  You simply start with your feelings, understand them and be comfortable with them. Your feelings, and the people you care about are what’s important.” 

“I figure that if one can handle it, go for it; it's your choice.  As for me, I'll stick with monogamy, thank you very much.”

Realistically - and Hollywood fiction pushed firmly to one side - attempting to define what human romantic love is, is no easy task; in polyamoric terms it is even harder.  Being in love with more than one person at the same time may be possible, although I would suggest it is more honest to say that what many regard as being in love is actually being in lust.  Whatever the case, maintaining an equitable relationship with both/all parties is difficult and demanding, to say the least.  It takes immense time and energy, entails a vast amount of trust, and requires a distinct lack of jealousy from the multiple partners concerned to ensure all parties are emotionally, mentally and physically satisfied.  In this sense, theoretically love may be easy but in real and practical terms it is anything but.  When we consider the potential problems a monogamous relationship may face (jealousy, dishonesty, political/religious differences, in-law dislikes, desire/non-desire for children, financial disagreements, infidelity etc.), the scope when three or more people are involved is exponentially greater.  The more people involved, the more likely it is that misunderstandings will take place, issues will develop, resentments will take shape and one or more people will end up resentful, heart-broken and angry.

Where children are involved, further problems and heartache are inevitable.  Parents involved in polyamorous relationships tend to keep them secret because of the possibility they may be used by an ex-partner (or other family member) as grounds to deprive them of custody and/or access to their children.  The fear is that multiple relationships will be used in family disputes in much the same way homosexuality has been used in the past.  In 1998, a family court in the State of Tennessee granted guardianship of a child to her grandmother and step-grandfather after the child's mother, April Divilbiss, and partners revealed themselves as polyamorous on MTV.  After contesting the decision for two years, Divilbiss agreed to relinquish her daughter, acknowledging that she was unable to adequately care for her child and that this, rather than her polyamory, had been the grandparents' real motivation in seeking custody.  The Tennessee case is not representative of law across the United States; family law varies significantly from state to state, and occasionally even within a state.  Contrastingly however, a 2003 article in The Guardian by Helena Echlin comments how, "British people are, if anything, more tolerant than in America which is perhaps why British polys are less in need of support groups."  She goes on to quote a UK source as stating: "We have a tradition of people minding their own business here.  People might disapprove, but they won't try to mess up your life.  In America, they might call social services." 

In a paper on sexuality, Ronald E Long suggests, ‘all sex be thought of as a form of meeting, so that sexual “introductions” might be seen as ends in themselves, and sex within a relationship as meeting in depth.  We might also think of a man’s erection as his wearing his heart on his sleeve, distortions taking place when he forgets.’    For Christians, however, it is precisely the erotic or sexual character of a multiple-partner relationship that raises issue, irrespective of whether the sexual relationships are loving, just as it is shocking to introduce an erotic component into a son-mother, brother-sister, or adult-child relationship.  Whether or not such relationships are ‘loving,’ as well as being sexual, is beside the point.  The premise that eroticism and sexual intercourse are nothing more than greater intimacy, and thus something to be shared naturally and generously with multiple partners, presents little understanding of Christian prerequisites to sexual relationships.  The position also exposes the far more alarming prospect, though logical conclusion, that intimacy between adults and children should be open to this ‘natural progression’ of sexual intimacy, given that it merely reflects greater love and affection.  

From a Christian perspective, sex within life partnerships or marriage furthers the unity of the partners ontologically and is therefore always creative, with or without the possibility of raising children.  This is consistent with an orthodox understanding of the nature of life partnerships, of two becoming one flesh and which in turn reflects the hypostatic union in Christ.  Such a union cannot be achieved through multiple relationships.  In addition, a vital connection exists between the basis of Christian worship and the basis of our morality.  The world is tainted by injustice and horror, and the God of covenant demands of his people that we work to combat injustice and alleviate misery in the world.  Making the fulfilment of desires a priority over this, whatever the intentions of its advocates, only serves to hinder our meeting this moral demand.  In a broken world of atrocious human actions, illness, oppression, starvation and misery, there is something obscene about an order of priorities that promotes Christian ideals being circumscribed by selfish emotional and physical desires.

Conclusion

Within both the theological and pastoral arenas the church needs to question and answer what Christian sexual ethics are about and how we apply them, enabling a building up rather than a tearing down of those looking to the church for guidance.  Modernity presents us with a throw away attitude towards not only material things in life but also human relationships.  It is all too easy to fall into a ‘quick fix’ mentality and a desire for the immediacy of satisfaction, whereby we compartmentalise everything and, when some or other part of our lot ceases to satisfy, being too old or irritatingly familiar, we discard it for the sake of what we perceive as new and exciting.  The preference is for what is easy, quick and immediate over what takes time, work and commitment.

It is here the concept of polyamory may appear so attractive, so fulfilling, so easy.  It seemingly answers all the needs of the individual demanding perfect mental and emotional harmony along with fantastic sex.  However, such a rosy picture is exactly that, rose-tinted.  It misjudges that fulfilment of self will be easier, that crises and problems may be better dealt with when more people are involved, that boredom and irritation won’t creep in.  It ignores the full implications of the benefits and risks of partnership as the crucible for developing love, sex and being as the creative force within a relationship’s fulfilment and the definitive satisfaction of both individuals concerned.  For the Christian, these are serious considerations.  We must ultimately ask how our relating to others should reflect Christ and, in our most intimate of relationships, if God wants only the very best for each of us then what is that very best and how do we achieve it?  Polyamory in this regard cannot in reality be considered as a comfortable all-embracing ideology. 

Ideology is what is left when faith has been put to one side.  It is forgetting that there is a transcendent ‘Other One’ who is greater than us, all holy and all loving, who constantly holds us throughout life’s questions and revelations.  Here, we have room to be wrong, and learn to get it right.  Christians who sidestep faith become frightened of disagreement and erroneously believe that what is needed is unanimity of opinion, of ideology, where everyone agrees on the acceptability of something, even if personal participation could not be entertained.  However, this is symptomatic of people with a compulsion for certainty and a need for being right.  Consequently, they will clutch at false certainties and artificial righteousness that have less to do with trusting God and the guidance of the church and far more to do with circumscribing Christian policy or doctrine to personal longings and selfish desires.   This in turn reveals our trust to be not in Christ as our rock and foundation, but in ourselves.  If we were trusting Christ, we would be happy to know that we can all learn and grow together, and even be wrong about something together; which is foundational for mature dialogue. 

For Metropolitan Community Church in particular, it is time to make a stand.  We are a Christ-centred, universal fellowship of people committed to the promotion of God’s unconditional love and the inclusion of all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender; this message has rung out strong and true for more than 40 years and is both essential and laudable.  However, I wonder if we have become so caught up in the fight against oppression and exclusion that we habitually knee-jerk against the possibility of offending any person or any sexual preference, to the detriment of forgetting our call to holy living and our commitment to both teaching and practising an integrity and moral standing worthy of the followers of Jesus Christ.  The resulting ambiguity is a sign that we are straining gnats whilst swallowing rather enormous camels and, in hoisting a rainbow flag on the pole of ambiguity rather than allow our ‘yes’ to mean yes and our ‘no’ no, we make cowards of all of us when it comes to the teaching of Christ, to the point where we seem afraid to make a positive stand for covenantal faithfulness.

Theologically, we do need to be honest enough, gracious enough, indeed wise enough, to be able to grasp that the holistic teaching of Scripture - and in particular the teaching of Jesus Christ - reveals that marriage or life-partnership consists of two people and no more than two.  A marriage of two people is both essential and sufficient for the most intimate of human relationships, thus additional erotic-based or sex-based relationships are superfluous and adulterous.  We need to encourage and educate the Christian community regarding the integrity of desire, enabling it to become Christ-centred rather than self-centred, because only here will we fully recognise that a life-partnership truly has room only for five people:  the couple concerned, plus the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.          

Bibliography & Cited Works

Roy J Deferrari & Charles T Wilcox, Saint Augustine: Treatises on Marriage and Other Subjects.  Catholic University Press, Washington, 1955.

Matilda Joslyn Gage, Woman, Church And State, 1893.  Reprinted by Arno Press Inc, 1972.

Robert E. Goss, Proleptic Sexual Love: God's Promiscuity Reflected in Christian Polyamory.   Theology and Sexuality, Vol. 11, No. 1, 52-63, Webster University, Missouri, 2004.

Jay E. Johnson, Trinitarian Tango: Divine Perichoretic Fecundity in Polyamorous Relations (unpublished paper, presented to the American Academy of Religion), Richmond University, California, 2003.

Spencer Klaw, Without Sin: The Life and Death of the Oneida Community.  The Penguin Press, New York, 1993.

Ronald E Long, Heavenly Sex: The Moral Authority of a Seemingly Impossible Dream (unpublished paper, presented to the American Academy of Religion), Hunter College, New York, 2004.

Anthony Ravenscroft, Polyamory: Roadmaps for the Clueless and Hopeful.  Fenris Brothers, Santa Fe, 2004.

Tristan Taormino, Opening Up: A Guide to Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships. Cleis Press Inc, San Francisco, 2008.

Walter Wink, Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality, The Christian Century, November 7, 1979.