It’s Time for the Church to Talk About Polyamory

Polyamory Heart
Image credit: GiselaFotografie, Pixabay.

The Christian church has come a long way on matters related to human sexuality. Of particular note has been the headway made in affirming the LGBTQ community in many mainline, progressive, and liberal streams of the church. That’s not to say we don’t still have a long way to go, but I’m proud of the strides we’ve made. And I’m proud of the fact that we’re having these conversations, working through issues that present themselves, and figuring out what it means to be queer and Christian.

However, the same can’t yet be said for another relational orientation: polyamory.

Polyamory, defined in a recent, wide-ranging survey as “consensually non-monogamous relationships [where] there is an open agreement that one, both, or all individuals involved in a romantic relationship may also have other sexual and/or romantic partners,” has been on the rise in global culture at large—and even within the church. In the interest of transparency, I should also disclose the fact that my wife and I are polyamorous ourselves and recently decided to open our marriage as such.

Some conversations certainly have been happening, but for the most part, they’ve been taking place well off the radar of the church at large. Sure, there are plenty of whispers and rumors. And there are the knee-jerk reactions from conservative watchdogs, warning about the “slippery slope” from LGBTQ-affirmation to polyamory (as if that would be an obvious problem). And a few individual affirming voices have been speaking over the past few years. (Thank you.)

But quietly, there are the thousands of faithful Christians who practice polyamory—living lives of giftedness, dignity, and worth, but receiving next-to-no spiritual support.

This raises an important question. Where are the serious public conversations about this? Why aren’t most LGBTQ-affirming churches being equally vocal about their affirmation of polyamorous people? Or, if they affirm same-sex relationships but not polyamorous ones, then why aren’t they at least being clear about this and explaining their reasons for it?

[Update: Some of my words here were not as clear as they should have been. See my apology and clarification.]

There are hundreds if not thousands of books out there about same-sex issues from a Christian perspective. But I haven’t been able to find a single book on polyamory in the church. (Please point it out to me if you know of one!)

The recent so-called “Nashville Statement” has resulted in a number of beautifully affirming counter-creeds (including one from actual Nashville residents), but only one of the major responses I’ve seen so far (other than my own) has addressed the fact that polyamory was included in the original attack:

WE DENY that God has designed marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship.

Why the silence from so many friends and potential allies? (And props to Metropolitan Community Churches for being the exception.)

Here are five reasons why the church needs to start talking about polyamory:

  1. As I’ve mentioned, a number of faithful polyamorous Christians are already present, and they often feel closeted from their faith communities by default. If the church is to be the church for all people, then we need to talk through what it means to be poly and Christian. We can’t just leave this kind of relationship on the sidelines.
  2. Additionally, there are many more faithful Christians who either feel that they are poly or feel drawn to see if they are, but they’re not sure whether it is compatible with their faith.
  3. Related to the above, there are a number of people who have left the church because they assume—rightly or wrongly—that their polyamorous relationships would not be welcome there.
  4. And there are plenty of polyamorous non-Christians who would be interested in learning more about Christian faith, community, and practice, were it not for the same assumption that they would be unwelcome.
  5. Finally, polyamory is here, and it is growing—regardless of what we may personally think about it. We need to learn what the spectrum of non-monogamous relationships look like and how they work, if for no other reason than to better understand and relate to our polyamorous neighbors.

So, over the next few posts, I’m going to try to jump-start the conversation. I don’t intend to give any kind of definitive word about polyamory and Christianity, but my hope is that others from the broader church—particularly those who are already LGBTQ affirming—will respond with thoughts of their own. As for the more conservative branches of the church, I’m fairly certain I already know how they will respond, and I’m not overly concerned about that. But who knows—maybe they’ll surprise me?

For the next post, we’ll start the conversation by clearing up some common misconceptions about polyamory. In the meantime, if you’re interested in learning more about polyamory from a respected source, take a look at MoreThanTwo.com.


Posts on polyamory

"Oh is that your plan? Or do you think it's already categorized as a mental ..."

It’s Time for the Church to ..."
"Fred - you are not the only one reporting heavy-duty antagonism on the atheist side ..."

Thoughts on the Eucharist: Mystical not ..."
"at the end of the day, it's the atheists on Patheos that are driving me ..."

Thoughts on the Eucharist: Mystical not ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Camino1

    I cannot in good conscience endorse polyamory. If you can help me with my conscience, fine, but my perception is that it even more easily opens the door for exploitation than does monogamy.

    • http://hippieheretic.com/ Chuck McKnight

      I’d love to hear more specifically why you feel it opens the door for exploitation.

      • Camino1

        Manipulation, codependency, and more can be a part of a monogamous relationship where trust can be delicate. This appear to exponentialize the quantities of emotional energy required to not break that trust. If we’re only talking sex, that would be one thing, but in a relationship that sustains and nourishes for life, communication is vital.

        And infidelity against one person, for example, or financial mismanagement, or parental recklessness is painful enough. Talk about cheating on 3 or 4 people!

        • http://hippieheretic.com/ Chuck McKnight

          Communication absolutely is vital. No argument there. Polyamory is certainly a different kind of relationship, and it does require a lot more communication (among other things) to maintain. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t doable. Monogamy and polyamory each have their own unique strengths and weaknesses. But it should be left up to every individual to decide which one of those formats they want to opt into.

          • Dan Carollo

            How exactly do you communicate to the kids what it means to engage in a sexual acts with multiple people who are NOT their parent?

          • http://hippieheretic.com/ Chuck McKnight

            Well, it’s actually pretty straightforward. You just tell them. It’s not a complicated thing for them to understand. Besides which, polyamory is primarily about relationship, not sex. Kids don’t need the details there any more than they do for sex with one’s spouse.

  • http://www.theprogressivesoul.com/ Chris Hyde

    I can’t tell you how excited I am to read this article. I can’t wait for the follow ups! This is an important discussion that the progressive churches need to have. Thanks for sparking the conversation!

  • Clayton Gafne Jaymes

    Let
    me guess, many of you ‘Christians’ already accepting the practice of
    same sex sin didn’t see this coming sooner or later for you to have to
    accept? Let’s see how long it takes for you to accept and affirm this
    sin too.

    You should do the wise thing, realize who
    is behind this sex acceptance nonsense renounce same sex relations
    especially for those saying they are ‘Christian’ and do what is good in
    the sight of the God you claim to know.

    You ppl are being influenced by Satan. And this article here should be more than enough for you to see it now

    • Charles Winter

      So, God accepted the polygamy of Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon and the “friendship” of David and Jonathon but is horrified by polyamory and same sex marriage? Please explain.

      • Roy D Carlson

        Are you a computer??? Do you have a macro which auto-types the same thing over and over?? Think, man! Use your brain!

  • DJM

    I’ve known people in polyamorous. I will admit that my exposure to polyamorous relationships whether they be same sex or opposite sex is limited. However, I have seen examples where one or both partners broke the rules in the primary relationship and it caused heartache and jealousy. From a theological perspective, my view of a relationship is a lot like my view of my relationship with God. In order to be a Christian it means that God is paramount in one’s life. My relationship with my husband is paramount — he is more important than any human relationship. Marriage is a bond that is more than just physical. It’s spiritual. So while I am not saying it’s “wrong” for non-Christians to practice polyamory, I believe that as a Christian, and as a gay Christian at that, I can’t practice polyamory because it contradicts my faith system.

    • Mark Kille

      DJM–I will be celebrating my 6th anniversary with my wife next month. She has been married to her other husband for nearly 3 times as long. We co-parent our 4 children, have all of our names on the deed of our house, and have completely entangled our financial, emotional and spiritual lives. It is wonderful that you have discerned that you can’t live the life God has called you to if you have more than one partner. But can you look at my Christian life and say that I have failed at covenantal relationship?

      • DJM

        As I mentioned before, I don’t see your relationship as “sin” and therefore I don’t see it as breaking covenants that you have already set in place. I think it is quite possible that someone can have a loving polyamorous relationship. What I did say that for my belief system, and my path it would be wrong. I never once said for you. Two Christians may have different belief systems and different paths. I know this may sound odd, because we both believe in Jesus. What I am commanded to is to look at my own heart and not judge the hearts of others, . However, if someone asked me my personal opinion as a friend or confidant, than I would express concerns.

        • Mark Kille

          Thank you. I appreciate your response. Is it fair to say that you would see a local congregation’s choice to publicly celebrate a family like mine, as they do for monogamous marriages, to likewise be a matter of conscience?

          • DJM

            Yes.

          • Mark Kille

            Great :)

          • Bill Ten Eyck

            Isn’t it wonderful to be able to make your own rules about what is moral and immoral, so that you don’t ever have to held accountable for sin? Moral relativism is so FUN!

          • Mark Kille

            Bill Ten Eyck–I have many sins. Being a husband and father aren’t among them.

          • Bill Ten Eyck

            Calling more than one woman your wife is absolutely and gravely sinful. It is nothing less than adultery, and no amount of denial or obfuscation can change that. You have twisted the law of God to suit your own desires, and will be held accountable for it. You absolutely have failed at what God intended to be a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman.

          • Mark Kille

            You’re adorable! Completely wrong, of course. But adorable.

            For the record, I have only one wife. She’s got two husbands, though.

          • Bill Ten Eyck

            Completely wrong? Christ has taught for 2000 years that I’m correct. It’s also in Scripture. Whoever your “wife” was married to first is her real husband. She and her 2nd “husband” are committing adultery. But like I said, if you have no spine, you can just make up your own rules of morality to fit your lifestyle, like you and your “wife” do, and then nobody can tell you you’re wrong! Still won’t affect how it turns out for you on Judgment Day, but at least you can play pretend and have your kicks for the short time you’re on this Earth, right? HOORAY for being lukewarm!

          • Mark Kille

            Jesus taught that adultery leads to judgment, and that divorce and remarriage either absolutely or almost always (depending on the Gospel) puts one in a state of adultery. Please point me to the chapter and verse where Jesus teaches that taking another spouse without divorcing the first leads to judgment.

            I am not talking about “God’s plan for marriage” or the marriages that Jesus used as examples. I am saying, show me where Jesus explicitly condemned plural marriage, as he did adultery and murder and clinging to anger and hoarding wealth.

            I mean, it won’t persuade me, since I belong to the broad modern Christian tradition that tolerates divorce. (If you really want to argue that issue and have me take you seriously, first convince me you are equally opposed to lending money with interest.) But it would be interesting.

          • Bill Ten Eyck

            All you’ve done is reinforced my point – you choose whatever doctrine suits your desires. You are lukewarm, and you serve yourself, not God.

          • Mark Kille

            Your long-distance X-ray vision into my soul is truly impressive! As is your disdain for millions of your siblings in Christ. And your inability to answer my question. Have fun not using credit cards or, I suppose, facing the risk of eternal damnation for participating in usury.

    • Charles Winter

      Many monogamous partners break the rules of the relationship. Many Old Testament patriarchs were polygamous. What is your biblical or theological basis for condemning polyamory?

      • DJM

        You are right to say that the patriarchs were polygamous. But, that was the Old Covenant so to speak. In the New Testament, in 1 Timothy 3:2 Paul instructed Timothy that bishops were to “be married once.” Also, Mark 10;7-8 it speaks of two people becoming “one flesh.” In Matthew 19:9, in the case of divorce and remarriage, Jesus spoke about a divorced man marrying another as “adultery.” In this case, monogamy is implied. I don’t like using the word “condemned” because that seems to indicate that an individual did something wrong. For me, it wouldn’t be with my Christian path. It’s quite possible that another person could interpret Christianity differently and I am not speaking for them and their faith and what they believe. For me, being monogamous and married to my husband is rather like a monk taking certain vows. Should the church preach against polyamory? No. If I am asked what my preference is based on my limited knowledge of scripture, I will tell them. But, ultimately what goes on is between them and God.
        .

      • Anastasiya Belous

        Many OT patriarchs committed murder and God then condemned them for the murder… Does that give us permission now to commit murder however we like?

  • Laura Lowder

    This is where I want to take a DEEEEP breath and deliver a lecture on the Theology of the Body and the profound significance of monogamy — heterosexual monogamy. But it would fall on deaf ears.
    BUT there is no such thing as a “Faithful Christian” who practices polyamory. Theologically impossible.

    • Charles Winter

      But what of Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon? Do you condemn them?

      • Matt Federoff

        Uh…they weren’t Christians, dumb*** By the time of the NT, polygamy was no longer practiced by the Jews.

      • Seth D. Young

        God did not reject Abraham, Jacob, etc. because he had a covenant with them based on grace, not based on their performance. The OT is also clear that God did not approve of their sexual sin. Abraham and Hagar as an example, are described as committing sin…Abraham and Sarah not trusting in God’s promise resulted in them taking Abraham’s sexuality into their own hands… ignoring the promise and doing whatever they thought was best. Abraham, Hagar, Ishmael, and Sarah all suffered the hard consequences of their sin. God is good and gracious though, and remains faithful to the elect even when we are faithless. Mercy is only needed when there is sin…so God’s mercy is not a tacit approval of us doing whatever we want. It’s mercy because we violated his law, and his design.

      • Jimmie Mack

        Not the same. Abraham was called out of a pagan culture and it was Near Eastern practices. Further, the Bible does say Solomon was wrong. Last, marriage is clear in the New Testament one man and one woman for life.

        • ChrisDACase95

          Nope, Jesus never says One Man One Woman. Paul said that, but only for bishops.

          The Bible doesn’t say what David did was wrong beyond murder and adultery. In fact, God GAVE David his wives.

      • B_Cody

        Jesus was unmarried. I suppose you will find something wrong with Him for not affirming “polyamory,” eh?

      • Keith Fretz

        Look at what happened to David when he was polyamorous with Bathsheba – Uriah’s murder, death of his son, and a plague hitting Israel. Doesn’t sound like God approved. He was forgiven, as were the others. The others were legitimate marriages, so are irrelevant to the discussion of polyamory.

        • Steven Esses

          David was adulterous and neither Uriah nor David’s wives were asked for their consent. But whether polyamory can be considered a biblical option for Christians today is another story. There are so many things God commands or commends that are abominable to American Fundies, and much that they hold dear that is abominable to the God of the Bible. Seems like very selective outrage.

      • http://stressandstars.blogspot.com/ Katie

        None of them were Christian.

    • B_Cody

      I couldn’t have said it better! Thank you, Laura!

    • Linguagroover

      As God said to Noah when incest was the divine remedy for genocide and global eco-vandalism. The main thing about theology is that, of course, anything goes. Like homeopathy, it just involves making something up about nothing.

      • Rick Sanchez

        Atheism and Skepticism are the biggest scams of all, claim the universe and life came from nothing. It violates the law of thermodynamics as if none of you studied physics and just dropped out of high school because math was too hard for you.

  • Palamas

    “It’s Time for the Church to Talk About Polyamory.” No, actually, it’s not. Of course, the people who want to do so have already abandoned Christianity, and are part of fake churches, so if you want to do so, have at it. The real Christian churches, meanwhile, will go about the business of proclaiming and obeying the gospel as they have for 2000 years.

    • Charles Winter

      According to the Bible, God did not reject Abraham, Jacob, David, or Solomon because of their taking multiple wives. Why do you?

      • Palamas

        Try taking a class in basic biblical interpretation before asking silly questions. For one thing, polygamy is not the same thing as polyamory or even concubinage, since it has a degree of permanence and commitment that is lacking in mere polyamory. For another, the fact that polygamy was permitted in the Old Testament does not mean it is permitted to Christians–there is no hint of such in the NT. For a third, Jesus made clear that some of what was allowed to OT Israel (easy divorce, for example) was not in accordance with God’s design, but permitted because of their circumstances. Finally, the fact that God did not “reject” the figures you mention has nothing to do with whether specific behaviors were condemned or not. Did God approve of Abraham having a son by Hagar? Did He approve of David arranging for the death of Bethsheba’s husband in battle so that he could have her for himself?

        • ChrisDACase95

          No be he approved of the polygamy, that’s for sure.

          And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”
          2 Samuel 12:8.

          “Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. ”
          1 Kings 15:5.

          • Palamas

            Thank you for the irrelevant quotes that ignore the points my comment makes.

          • ChrisDACase95

            More like refute the comments you made. Those qoutws clearly show God had no problem with David’s polygamy.

          • Palamas

            You clearly haven’t even bothered to read my comment. What Fats Waller said about jazz applies to what people like you need to do with both the Bible and rational argumentation: “if you don’t know what it is, don’t mess with it.” Thanks for trolling. BLOCKED

          • ChrisDACase95

            Fine by me, I take that as a win.

      • Roy D Carlson

        God also ‘permitted’ divorce and allowed Moses to issue certificates of divorce, but it wasn’t His desire. He did it because of the sinfulness of man. I can’t think for God, sin is sin and it matters not the generation. Besides all that, Jesus reaffirmed for the people the proper, godly, and right understanding of marriage, condemning the divorce certificate for nearly all reason (except unfaithfulness), and reaffirming that marriage is for one man and one woman only. This is how it was in the beginning, sinful people screwed up (as we do most things), God permitted it and even used it for his own advantage from time to time, but then reaffirmed it in Christ.

      • B_Cody

        Abraham lied too…I guess that means we can’t argue that the Bible condemns lying…

      • Ray D.

        Each of these people suffered troubles because of taking multiple wives.

        Sarah and Hagar feuded, causing Abraham to send Ishmael away.

        Jacob’s wives fought with each other, and Israel had long-term tribal divisions.

        David’s sons fought with and in some cases killed each other.

        And Solomon’s wives led him to be unfaithful to the Lord. (Go look it up.)

        Just because they did it, doesn’t make it right.

        • ChrisDACase95

          And Adam and Eve are balked for bringing sin into the world, and one of their sons killed the other. Guess that means monogamy is bad.

  • Andrea

    Sin is always unacceptable to the body of Christ. The sinner should always be welcomed as long as they are not encouraging sinful behaviors to the body. I welcome LGBTQ people but will never affirm their sin, and more then I’d affirm lying, gossiping, adultery etc etc. Our churches are full of sinners in need of a Savior, in need of grace, in need of discipleship….. not in need of condemnation and never to be encouraged to sin.
    I tell LGBTQ people to come as they are, knowing God fully loves them. Do the best they can but be honest with God and allow themselves to be loved as they are… if God changes them…wonderful. If He doesn’t change them…. remain faithful where your at. I wish I could be totally sin free but I struggle with anger, unforgiveness etc etc. I’m old, sex isn’t an issue for me… funny how easy it is to judge others when it’s not your sin that they’re talking about.
    Educate, edify and encourage…. everyone. We don’t clean them …..God does… we just love them. Hopefully.

    • Charles Winter

      So, you reject Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon because of their polygamy; and you reject David because of his relationship with Jonathon? Of what part of the Bible do you approve?

      • capmike1

        3 times you have brought this same thing up and multiple people have responded to you with their reasons for this SAME EXACT POST you continue to spread. Yet no response from yourself.

        • Edwin Woodruff Tait

          It’s also ironic that he uses this argument on Chuck’s page, given that Chuck is a Neo-Anabaptist almost to the point of Marcionism–he has a very, very low view of the Old Testament. Of course Charles may have a very different theology of the OT.

          • http://hippieheretic.com/ Chuck McKnight

            I have an extraordinarily high view of all scripture, which is exactly why I refuse to force it to say things it doesn’t, as conservatives do.

      • Dan Carollo

        Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon practiced polygamy because that was part of the ancient, near-east culture they came out of. God chose a people, with their in-grained culture — warts and all — but that doesn’t mean God actually endorsed it. In fact, every place this polygamy occurs, there are always consequential problems with it.

    • Ken Breadner

      Don’t say you welcome gay people so long as they’re not gay. That’s flat ridiculous and incredibly condescending.

      • Bill Ten Eyck

        She did not say that at all. She said what Christ insists – that she believes in treating all people with dignity and respect, including those who have same-sex attraction, but that does not (logically) equate to approving of their sin, whether it be homosexual activity, habitual theft, or anything else.

  • Annika Mongan

    I left the church for a number of reasons, but the one that tipped the scales in favor of exiting was my polyamorous relationship. My thought was “well, now there’s no turning back, there will never be a place in the church for me.”

    Since then I have had numerous Christian friends come out to me as polyamorous. Almost all of them are closeted in their Christian communities. I was and still am amazed at how many closeted polyamorous Christians there are, and not just in progressive or liberal churches, but also in evangelical churches that are not LGBTQ-friendly.

  • Cale B.T.

    ABSOLUTELY HERETICAL

  • Ken Nichols

    I know it’s not for me. I have enough issues with just one partner. 😛

    And I see it as being fraught with problems, well, POTENTIAL problems, that would be MUCH less likely in one-on-one relationships. It’s definitely not something that should be entered into lightly, or for certain personality types. The counseling bills would likely mount up quickly.

    HOWEVER, my mind is NOT closed, and I will be eagerly reading the follow-ups to this post. Be assured my respect for you has not been diminished one bit by your “coming out” publicly on this issue. I’m amazed at the condemnation already being flung at you. I wonder if they would have done the same to the biblical patriarchs, all of whom had multiple partners. I guess it’s OK, though, because they were men. :/

    • Charles Winter

      Any relationship has problems. When you add another partner, the number of problems is squared. People who praxtice polyamory think that the extra work is worth it.

  • Jeff Tomes

    Smile, “you’re on candid camera”.

  • http://www.jonesfamily.us/ Ron Jones

    “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

    Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

    1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

    1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

    1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

    1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

    1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

    • Linguagroover

      That’s Solomon burning in hell then on the say-so of St Paul the Misogynator.

  • Perry Turchi

    These polyamory “Christians” minds are so open that their brains have fallen out.

    • Ember Isle

      Constructive addition to the conversation you’ve got, there.

      • Perry Turchi

        Not any more or less than your own Bub.

  • jemgeach

    When Professor Anscombe wrote about contraception, she foresaw this development, once the bonds of convention had broken. It was inevitable, once the wide acceptance of contraception vitiated society’s understanding of the procreative meaning of the marriage act, and “no fault” and other divorce undermined marital permanence: the chance that the third mark of marriage, exclusivity would survive was minimal.
    It seems that societally we are worse off than the pre-christian world. For while the males in that society were openly subject to sexual addictions, at least the idea of confarreatio marriage meant that there was a form of true marriage honoured in Roman society.
    True marriage is not only a liberation from sexual bondage, but also the sacrament which God has used as a metaphor for His relationship with His people, both in the old and the new covenant. Attacks on marriage (which is properly permanent, exclusive and procreative) are thus an attack on God’s relationship with His people.

  • Kevin Rice

    The Church has become more positively affirming of the value of people who practice SODOMY, but has not gone far enough toward affirming the virtues of DEBAUCHERY.

    No, with an older, more accurate vocabulary the thesis of this article just makes no sense.

    • Linguagroover

      Solomon. Biblical. I rest my case.

      • Keith Fretz

        Solomon, got caught up in idolatry from his wives, Solomon. Polygamy, not polyamory (which was permitted under Moses, but rejected by Jesus, who was God himself, and perfectly fulfilled Mosaic law and set it aside.)

        • Linguagroover

          The great thing about the Bible is that it is gloriously open to speculation. I used to be a theist but now operate very happily in the understanding that Yahweh and other gods do not exist, and if ‘Moses’ and ‘Jesus’ did they were operating with an illusion (as I was) or delusion, which we would now categorise as mental illness.

          • Rick Sanchez

            So you can diagnose a mental illness by reading a book? You got proof of a PHD in Psychiatry or are you just an Armchair (Archie Bunker) Psychiatrist?

  • Matt Federoff

    Yet another instance where I am so thankful I am Roman Catholic. What the author is proposing is simply madness. It cannot in any tangental possibility be considered acceptable in Christian thought.

    Yet another of the fruits of the Reformation. Once you throw out authority, everything is up for grabs in the end.

    • Linguagroover

      Of course the rot really set in with the Western rejection of Orthodoxy in 1054.

      • Mark

        Actually, the rot set in with the “authoritative” version of Christianity perpetrated by Constantine and the Council of Nicea who’s purpose was to define those IN and those OUT so Constantine could control the empire. Before that, Christianity was a living, thriving, changing, many faceted, boisterous, faith that was as heretical as Jesus was.

        Since then, it has been one big fight to determine whose rules get to be THE rules. That is SO far from Jesus it isn’t even funny.

        • Bill Ten Eyck

          When was the canon of the bible determined, and by whom? Did those who determined it have authority given to them by God Himself, or did they not?

          • Mark

            That’s the 65 Billion Dollar question. Athanasius in 367 was the first (that we know of) to list the 66 we have, but “lists” go way back. Basically it appears to have been a popularity contest, decided by “the winners” (those who always write history). 397 the council of Carthage “set” the canon officially, but there were major arguments all the way through the 16th & 17th century. Who gave those reps the “right” to make that claim? God? That’s all a choice of your belief. There are really powerful other codices (ancient texts) that point Christianity in different directions. How many “authoritative” meetings today do you know of that aren’t fraught with politics? It’s always been that way. Follow the $ and the power.

          • Bill Ten Eyck

            Truth isn’t relative to your or my opinion. Who do YOU believe gave them the authority? Which bible do you read, and how do you know the people who chose what books to go in that bible did not make any errors? And if you don’t know for sure, how would you even know with certainty what is “SO far from Jesus it isn’t even funny,” and what isn’t?

        • Linguagroover

          I was being slightly facetious re our friend of the Roman persuasion. I could say the rot definitely set in by the time 13 books that probably make bogus authorial claims (the worst offender being 2 Peter – read Bart Ehrman for details) had entered the New Testament canon. As a former theist, I’m now never quite sure which version of Jesus people are referring too: the largely cosmic superhero god-man of Paul, and to some extent John’s gospel, the rather basic guy in Mark, or the more embroidered version in Matthew and Mark. The chances of all these Jesuses being one historic person seem spectacularly slim.

    • Keith Fretz

      The Reformation didn’t throw out ALL authority, just replaced papal with scripture. It’s the modern churches that are throwing out all authority.

  • Dan Carollo

    I fully endorse explicit and promiscuous Agape (ἀγάπη) or Philia ( φιλία) Love among multiple partners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves

  • Dan Carollo

    How many more sexual sins must The Church welcome in order to make you to feel validated in your lifestyle? Furthermore, how do you explain this to the kids when you’re celebrating sexual love with multiple partners who are NOT their parent? The very complexity of trying to justify this should give pause to anyone who thinks this can actually be a GOOD thing.

    • Linguagroover

      Solomon. Biblical. I rest my case.

      • jefe

        Driving stakes through someone’s head. Biblical. Cutting up a body and sending the parts as warnings. Biblical. Bashing babies’ heads against rocks. Biblical. seriously?

  • musicman707

    Is this even real? Or was this fake news posted by a clandestine conservative who’s trying to stir the pot?

  • Linguagroover

    Chill. There’s plenty of it about in the Bible http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/polygamy.html Of course, a special cheer for wise old Solomon – not so much dull, square binary as industrial-scale concubinary.

  • Sander Grolleman

    I see no bible texts anywhere in this article that supports the view of polygamy, nor do I see it in scripture itself. I can only conclude that polyamorous people in our postmodern culture are seeking affirmation from the church–from which they will never gain full synonymous acceptation. There will always be churches that, as long as they stand on the Word of God, will deny polygamy, just like homosexuality and transgenderism. The LGBTQ community will always meet people that disagree, just as much as the church disagrees with them; and we should learn to live with that.

  • Keith Fretz

    You obviously have absolutely NO clue as to how religion works. Doctrine is like the religion’s constitution, not simply current rules. Decisions about what is sin is PERMANENT, not up for review whenever you feel like it. Muslims will NEVER change their view about eating pork, etc. Hindus will NEVER eat beef! just because some denominations decided to classify things from being sin to not shows only that their religion is just a club.

    • Duncan Robertson

      You have no idea about how religion works ! Lots of Jews eat ham (pork) and lots of Muslims drink. Some Hindus do eat beef athough many are vegetarian and eat no meat at all. But they remain in their faith.

      • Keith Fretz

        Disobedience of a rule does not negate the rule. Those who violate the rules of their religion do not remove the rules.

        • Duncan Robertson

          Keith, your intuition «Doctrine is like the religion’s constitution,» is correct. You are also correct to say «Disobedience of a rule does not negate the rule.»
          But constitutions like doctrines can change. But it is difficult to do so. You are arguing against change in doctrine.
          However, when the rules DO change, violations are considered sin and carry penalties.
          If a church accepts that women may be ordained they may – and some do – require all its churches to consider calling women as ministers. To qualify as an affirming church often requires a long process of preparation in many denominations where a congregation may decide to be affirming.
          In my church this year the General Assembby decided NOT to endorse a proposal that would permit its members to condemn homosexuality as a sin. But it confirmed its 1992 decision to declare homophobia a sin.
          Changing what is defined as sin does not make a church a social club. It is part of the growth of the church as it seeks to conform itself to the will of God.
          Sometimes refusing change is sin ! Paul made this abundantly clear in his letters against maintaining circumcision as a requirement for Christians. He even wrote «I just wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves.» (cut off their penises) Galatians 5: 12

          • Keith Fretz

            For 1930 or so years the sexual rules for the church were basically carved in stone for ALL Christian denominations (see “Mere Christianity” by C. S. Lewis, written during WWII) Since the 60’s the Bible has gone from a basic source of belief and practice to an embarrassment to many churches. If a denomination abandons basic doctrines because of societal pressure the problem is not the doctrine but the denomination. For over 1900 years the church’s position on sex was nearly identical to the Nashville Statement, now that statement is wrong? A denomination may turn from generally agreed upon theology, they are just human organizations who can sin. Many denominations are in fact groups of pagans who were baptized once. As G.K. Chesterton said “Going into a church doesn’t make a christian any more than going into a garage makes you a car.” God does not have to bless an organization that calls itself christian. (And as a side note, churches that reject the Nashville Statement are shrinking, while us bible thumpers are growing, ( though not fast enough to counteract the progressive’s shrinkage)) Many of the progressive denominations act as if there is NO God, and when they say “God” it simply a contentless religious word, and the church is just a man-made religious club.

          • Duncan Robertson

            Is it true that «for over 1900 years the church’s position on sex was nearly identical to the Nashville Statement» ?
            No. I love Mere Christianity. It was the first of C.S. Lewis’ Christian apologetics that I read after growing up on the tales of Narnia. However he was not writing an historical account of Christian sexual ethics. As you know he was presenting a case for Christianity and Christian sexual ethics during WW2 based on the contempory standards in the CofE. It’s a snapshot of evangelical Christianity at its best at that moment in time.
            For a more historical overview see :«6 Things You Probably Didn’t Know About Christianity And Sex»
            http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/christianity-and-sex_us_56cb6dc1e4b0ec6725e371d5
            Now many churches such as the Christian Reformed Church accept the existence of homosexuality (or «same sex attraction»). They counsel celibacy for Christian homosexuals. That is a return to the good old days of the early church where celibacy was encouraged for all Christians as explained in the following article.
            «Pope Siricius along with saints Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine condemned a Christian named Jovinian for heresy merely for teaching that married Christians were just as virtuous as celibate Christians. » The rules changed with the Protestant Reformation when «Christian teachers started saying that marriage was of equal and sometimes superior value compared to celibacy.»
            After the rise of the feminist movement evangelical «Christians began thinking of men and women as equals, the idea that femaleness itself was inferior was rejected, and the hierarchy of the sex act was replaced with the notion of egalitarian complementarity: male and female are equal and complement one another.» Mary Kassian of the Gospel Coalition confirms that «the label “complementarian” has only been in use for about 25 years. It was coined by a group of scholars who got together to try and come up with a word to describe someone who ascribes to the historic, biblical idea that male and female are equal, but different. »
            Dale B. Martin claims that «The resilience of Christianity has lain to a great extent in its ability to adapt its theology to the changes of history, from the radical asceticism of the ancient church to the family-oriented positive attitude toward sexuality of the modern church. From the inferiority of women assumed throughout history to the equality of women accepted only in the past forty years or so. »
            The Nashville Statement is clear : the Church is divided and in historical continuity with theological disputes in the past it considers all who disagree as unfaithful to the Christian tradition. Martin however concludes that «Christian history and current disagreements should be taken as demonstrating that a simple appeal to “what the Bible says” or “what the Church has always taught” cannot in and of itself create consensus about Christian ethics.»
            Dale B. Martin http://reflections.yale.edu/article/sex-and-church/it-s-about-sexnot-homosexuality Published 2006
            Mary Kassian https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/complementarianism-for-dummies

          • Duncan Robertson

            Thank you for reminding me of C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity.
            The following has guided me through the decades since I first read it. You will find it as his conclusion to section 5. Sexual Morality of Book 3 Christian Behaviour
            «Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.»
            I have the feeling that the Nashville Statement doesn’t agree with C.S. Lewis about sex, C. S.Lewis writes that « the centre of Christian morality is not here» !
            http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/apologetics/mere-christianity/Book3/cs-lewis-mere-christianity-book3.php#.Wa8487Lyh9M

          • Keith Fretz

            No, it’s not the center. On the other hand it’s not a trivial point either. Paul talks about how ‘There shouldn’t even be a hint of sexual immorality among you’. Since Paul had been trained as a Pharisee and well versed about the Old Testament his view of immorality would have been based on “Thou shalt not commit adultery, supplemented by Jesus’ comment about adultery from the sermon on the mount. Corinth was like many modern cities as far as morality. they had polygamy, polyamory, legal prostitution, homosexuality (both male and female), etc. Does he endorse any of those things? No! Is there precedent for accepting any of those thing from church history? Not in any of the church history books I’ve read. Do feelings get hurt? They get hurt no matter what. Did Jesus say the woman caught in the act of adultery wasn’t doing anything wrong or not hurting anybody? No! Did Jesus hurt the Pharisee’s feelings? Many times! did he offend them? Look at the times he healed on the sabbath. Sexual temptations are very hard to deal with. Does that mean we shouldn’t resist? Does that include pedophiles? Shall we start lowering the age of consent into nothingness? After all it’s just a number.
            BTW Lewis talks about divorce as being universally denounced in “Mere..” He also says “Thus while te rule of chastity is the same for ALL Christians at ALL times…” (emphasis mine) Later in the chapter he says “Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no getting away from it; the Christian rule is ‘Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.'” Does that sound like disagreement with the Nashville Statement?

          • Duncan Robertson

            ‘There shouldn’t even be a hint of sexual immorality among you’. What is sexual immorality ?
            Christians vary in their understanding – and on how important this is in our relations with one another.
            What happens if we take John 4 as our starting point for talking about sexual immorality ? How does Jesus talk with the woman who had been divorced 3 times and was not married to the man He called her husband ? I believe we should listen to the gospels as well as Paul’s letters. Although they were written later we regard them as of equal authority in our lives as Christians.
            You are right to point out that C.S.Lewis like the Church of England denounces divorce.
            Does the Nashville Statement denounce divorce or adultery ?
            No. See : http://www.divorceminister.com/divorce-minister-nashville-statement/
            C.S. Lewis celebration of sexual life in (heterosexual) marriage is in contrast with most of Christian tradition before the 20th century. Was he wrong ?
            Same sex marriage was NOT an issue at the time C.S. Lewis wrote Mere Christianity – and very rarely in the Christian tradition. Nevertheless the blessing of same sex unions is a small part of the historic Christian tradition.
            See : https://www.firstthings.com/article/1994/11/gay-marriage-reimagining-church-history

          • http://hippieheretic.com/ Chuck McKnight

            It’s also worth noting that while C.S. Lewis may have denounced divorce on paper, when actually confronted with the issue in his own life, he chose to go against the Church of England to marry a woman who had previously been divorced. His latter stance, I would argue, was far more authentic and honorable.

          • Duncan Robertson

            And the C of E followed C.S. Lewis lead on divorce 40 years later.
            https://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage,-family-and-sexuality-issues/divorce.aspx
            The Church of Rome has started thinking about it and even adultery differently too.
            Pope «Francis then asked, if it’s true that Jesus defined adultery as a grave sin, how is it possible that Jesus also spoke with an adulterer and said to her at one point, “I don’t condemn you, go and sin no more?”…
            “The path of Jesus, and we see this clearly, is a journey from casuistry to truth and mercy,” Francis said.
            “Jesus sets aside casuistry,” Francis said. “To those who want to test him, those who thinks in terms of the logic of ‘can or can’t,’ he describes them – not here, but in other passages of the Gospel – as ‘hypocrites.’”…
            “A casuistic mentality would ask, ‘What’s more important to God, justice or mercy?’ That’s a sick way of thinking,” Francis said. “There aren’t two things, only one. For God, justice is mercy and mercy is justice.”»
            https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/02/24/divorceremarriage-pope-says-keep-justice-mercy-together/

          • Keith Fretz

            Name a time before the twentieth century where any sex outside of heterosexual marriage was accepted by any church.

      • Duncan Robertson

        How does religion work ?
        People do not follow all the rules of their religion with the same discipline.
        Jesus spoke to this when he sorrows about the fate of those who make bad choices «”Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.» Luke 11: 42
        Would Jesus have been equally upset if the Pharisees failed to tithe the garden herbs ?
        In John 4 Jesus does not seem to be upset that the Samaritan woman is not married to the man with whom she is living. Jesus calls him her «husband»…
        In this discussion we are being called to define with more care what we call «sexual immorality».

    • Ember Isle

      Keith, unless you are Roman Catholic, uou are a hypocrite who obviously has absolutely NO clue as to how religion works.

      • Keith Fretz

        First, I an an evangelical bible believing christian, and am intimately familiar with the content of the bible, theology, church history, and world religions. so perhaps your statement about “no idea” is a bit exaggerated.
        Second, what do you mean ‘hypocrite’? What action of mine is the opposite of what I say? That is the meaning of ‘hypocrite’ after all. Being a strongly orthodox believer is not a hypocrite.

        • Ember Isle

          Well, first, you clearly overlooked that I quoted your original wording in my reply. So perhaps YOUR statement about “no idea” is a bit exaggerated.

          Second, I meant hypocrite. If you are truly learned in church history, you are well aware that the Reformation was one giant upheaval of doctrine and determination of what is sin. This has continued throughout the ages with every subsequent schism. Tens of thousands of schisms.

          Not Roman Catholic, but saying anything in the Church is “PERMANENT”…..hello, hypocrite.

          • Keith Fretz

            1. The reformation did not redetermine what is sin, just reset the source of authority from the pope to the bible. In fact all schisms are about secondary things like structure. no schism ever rejected Jesus, Communion, and many other ting have been there since day one. Those who reject any of those things are considered new religions.
            2. Disagreement and error is NOT hypocrisy. See a dictionary. Hypocrisy is basically words that are the opposite of my actions. Period. You cannot call me a hypocrite since you do not know my actions.

          • Ember Isle

            Consistent with the rest of your finger-pointing, it is you who needs to see a dictionary. Actions aren’t even in the first Merriam-Webster definition of hypocrite: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion.

            Your continued blustering and lack of understanding of even your own words bores me, so I’m through. (Hint: after the dictionary definition of “hypocrite”, check out “indulgences”.)

            I’ll pray for the Holy Spirit to continue to speak to your heart and broaden your understanding of the Word.

          • Keith Fretz

            1. Indulgences didn’t remove the status of sin from the act. You didn’t need an indulgence to do good, only sins.
            2. How do you know my appearance of religion is false? Because it’s not like yours? Because I actually believe in sin?

    • Bill Ten Eyck

      I’m afraid Ember has a point. The reformation (as you pointed out) made the bible the primary source of authority for those outside of the Catholic Church. In actuality, what that did was make every person’s private interpretation the real authority, not a book which must be read and interpreted. It went from there being one pope, to every protestant being his/her own pope. Nowadays, if a protestant goes to a church and doesn’t agree with the pastor, he/she can just go find a different church where his ears are tickled, or even start his own church. Everyone is too busy worshiping the mirror to realize that they are subscribing to the Christian version of secular atheism’s moral relativism.

  • Jimmie Mack

    I know we are in the end of time with articles like this actually being serious. God has not called us to unholiness but to holiness.

  • Midnyte Hierax

    The Unitarian Universalist Churh of America has been having this conversation for years now, with just as much controversy to it. There is a religious education curriculum on the topic (from a UU perspective) called Love Makes a Family by Mim Chapman that might help provide guidance to Christians who are open minded enough to engage in the discussion.

  • Matt Kellon Robinson

    What a tragic and sickening betrayal of Christ. You are going to hell and taking others with you. Just buying millstones for your neck at the moment.

  • Andrea

    My quest in regarding this topic: what is God’s best for us?

  • Roy D Carlson

    Churches accepting Homosexuality and homosexual behavior isn’t ‘progress’! It’s digression back to the time of Noah and the flood, back to Sodom and Gomorrah. Maranatha! I pray God’s return soon so that this world can be judged and we who are faithful can go home!

    • Mark

      Awfully nice you have it all figured out. Even Paul didn’t make that claim. He kept hoping, not knowing, but moving on in faith. He continued to “work out (his) salvation with fear and trembling.” Phil 2:12

    • ChrisDACase95

      Don’t hold your breathe. Rapture’s never gonna happen.

  • B_Cody

    This is without a doubt the most well dressed foolishness I’ve seen in a long time. God is not mocked Mr. McKnight. Your hell-bound beliefs may take you with them if you don’t repent, sir. God forbid anyone else believes this garbage you are handing out!

  • Oak66

    Faithful Christian who practices polyamory..which is just whoring around ..or sodomy is a non-sequitur Like a solid gas., or dry water, or Hitler the Jew lover. These morons ..apostates ..don’t even know the first step of Christianity which is surrender to the LORDSHIP of Christ…King Jesus…gives the orders…and to willfully disobey them is treason…..Christianity is NOT saying a fast prayer to get your ‘Get outa Hell Free ‘ card to stick in your wallet…Or just being super nice and your ok ….I’m ok…..If it was then Jesus sure had a strange way of getting a whole lot of people angry and stirring up trouble…Bud….you give Hippies a bad name….and I used to be one decades ago…before I grew up.

  • Linda Larson Werhane

    1 Corinthians 6:18New International Version (NIV) 18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

  • Mike Spencer

    Sorry, you can’t call yourself/ believe/act outside of the well defined parameters of sexual behavior described in the scriptures as acceptable and expect people to recognize you as a Christian. Christ Himself narrowly defined human sexuality whilst rebuking the jews for their uncompassionate divorce practices. Continuing to walk in unrepentant sin identifies that you are not in Christ and have rejected His gospel.

    • Ember Isle

      Why should I care whether or not YOU recognize me as Christian?

      Maybe then you can explain how “uncompassionate divorce practices” are synonymous with “nonmonogamous consenting adults”.

      • Mike Spencer

        You should care who God recognizes as a Christian. A Christian cannot continue in unrepentant sin. [Mat 19:4 ESV] 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female. This is Christ’s word on proper sexual relations, and is consistent with all of scripture. Every version other than one man, one woman for life falls into the category of the sin of adultery. Every thought word and deed that falls outside of this category of sexual behavior is adultery and is why we are all justly pronounced guilty according to the law given by Christ to the world. Becoming a Christian is repenting of all sin as defined by the word of God. The law is written on your conscience, you cannot but confirm that the law is righteous and good, and that you are not. To deny this, is to deny the fact that Christ died to save sinners. He did not die to save them to their sin, but from their sin. Don’t worry about my judgement, worry about the judgement of the law.

        • Ember Isle

          No need to worry your pretty little head. God and I are A-OK.

          You might want to reread those verses on reserving judgment, however.

          • Mike Spencer

            Not sure which verses you are worried about me reading, but the scriptures in all cases expect that we should confess what God says about a matter rather than what we can reason our way to doing. The scriptures also require that we be righteous judges rather than reserving all judgement. We are not to judge people either condemned or acquitted before the time, but we are certainly able and encouraged to judge right from wrong according to God’s word.

  • Michael Gleason

    Here is my problem with this whole issue theologically. Biblical Marriage is picture of of how Christ loves the Church. Christ is monogamous to the Church and so the Biblical view of Marriage is Monogamy. In Christ loving the Church he is always faithful, he has eyes only for his Bride (the Church). There is one Church, One Bride. In the same way the Church is called to be wholly faithful to the one who redeems us. There are many passages in the old and new that talk about being unfaithfulness to God. God throughout the Bible condemns Israel for being unfaithful. So if Biblical Marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church the idea that Polyamory does not stand up to Biblical Scrutiny. If you plan to respond with the typical what about Abraham, David, Solomon…etc. You need to understand that the people in the Bible are flawed individuals that do no live up to the the Perfection of Christ. The ideal marriage in Scripture is 1 Man 1 Woman for life.

    • Mark

      So long as you define the church as a single “person”, then your logic is sound. So all one has to do within your argument is define monogamy as a single relationship with ones “family” (or come up with a different word that includes multiple individuals). The church is obviously NOT one person. Christ himself, throughout history and early church writings, is spoken of as the spiritual spouse/lover/husband/wife/mate/partner, etc. of one or another believer. Therefore, he is obviously in intimate, emotional, spiritual communion with many. Such is polyamory “in its ideal.” But, as many here have indicated, the Christian community, including within the bibilical narrative, is full of imperfect people; i.e. all of us.

      • Michael Gleason

        I don’t make the definition the Bible does. 1 Christ and 1 Church (Which is one single organism made up of many parts). We are members of the body (Church) See 1 Corinthians 12:12 And Romans 12. Christ may be spoken of as the groom/ lover/husband but He is always monogamous and always faithful to the Bride.
        If you want to claim to be a Christian than all your definitions should come from scripture. You cannot redefine to fit your agenda. /argument.

        • Mark

          Right. And no one in the church has ever done that. The Bible is absolutely clear about everything and that’s why we have ONE biblical religion and not thousands.

          • Michael Gleason

            So because people in the past have taken scripture out of context, and redefined biblical concepts it make it ok to do so now? Are you saying since the Bible is not absolutely clear on everything it is not clear on anything? These comments do not help your argument because they are logical fallacies. The problem is you cannot argue your polyamorous beliefs without redefining scripture.

          • Mark

            Much as you would like it to be otherwise, this is not an issue of “That was their fault. NOW we do it right!” You define biblical concepts, I define biblical concepts, EVERYONE defines biblical concepts. To think otherwise is simply not to acknowledge (or know) how the human mind works and has always worked. If you believe that what you say is communicated to someone else the same way you mean it, you are simply deluding yourself. Which, of course, you and I and everyone else is certainly welcome to do. It doesn’t change a thing.

          • Michael Gleason

            You have yet to explain a Biblical Concept that makes polyamorous relationships an acceptable Christian Belief. You have essentially given me the, “To each his own response” with no true defense of your belief.

          • Mark

            If I thought that you were actually interested in my belief, I’d be glad to. I love sharing myself with people who want to get to know me, and hearing about them too. But I choose not to throw my beliefs out there to people who have no interest in engaging with me as a person, but only want to buttress their own beliefs and feel good about themselves by showing (only themselves) how righteous they are and how damnable the rest of us are. You see, I used to be like that. (BTW, I don’t believe that that makes me better than you; I’ve just been down that road and choose not to go down it for others.)

          • Michael Gleason

            1. you sure just assumed a lot about me. you assume I am not interested in engaging you as a person.. You assume that I am condemning you. 2. I have not once made a personal attack. I have commented on your response to my original post and those that have come afterwards. I have said that polyamorous relationships do not line up with Christian Beliefs and a Biblical Worldview. 3. I enjoy a good debate. I have many friends that see the world differently than me. I don’t need to “buttress” my beliefs. I have spent a lot of time discovering and working on what and why I believe. 4. We are all damnable before we come to Jesus.

          • Mark

            I didn’t make any assumptions about you. I simply indicated I didn’t think, based on your comments, that it was likely. You have the opportunity to respond as you wish. I don’t intend to “debate” you. I’ll debate politics (though there’s not much difference in the way people respond), but religion is for sharing experience and meaning, not debating.

  • Jeffrey M. Kessler

    “consensually non-monogamous relationships [where] there is an open agreement that one, both, or all individuals involved in a romantic relationship may also have other sexual and/or romantic partners,”

    If one of the people involved in your relationship is *God* — as is the case in all Christian marriages, then ‘all individuals involved’ are not consenting, because He doesn’t.

    • Ember Isle

      In which other circumstances do you jump in and speak for God on another’s relationship with God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit?

  • Anastasiya Belous

    I would like to see this man use THE BIBLE, not his opinions to explain how his polyamory theology lines up with the BIBLE.

    Marriage is between one man and one woman:
    (This is Jesus speaking now…)
    “He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4 – 6).”

    I would like to emphasis “LET NO MAN SEPARATE”, that means not even if you feel like having a polyamory relationship and your wife is ok with it.

    ALSO, the 7TH COMMANDMENT clearly says “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, and in case you are confused about what adultery is, its “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.” God condemns adultery continuously throughout the whole BIBLE!

    If you are not going to use the BIBLE to prove that God is OK with your polyamory relationship, the. DON’T call yourself a Christian, because Christian means follower of Christ or Christ’s disciple, and if you follow Christ then you follow God, and God gave us the BIBLE.

    • http://hippieheretic.com/ Chuck McKnight

      A thorough biblical and theological examination of the topic is coming. This post was only meant as an introduction.

  • Mark

    First off: While a conversation is nice (and maybe an important beginning), and including biblical examples are interesting, maybe even fun, Christians can’t agree with each other about almost any aspect of their own faith, so what makes us believe that they would support or even understand something that is so on the edge of our culture in general? People rarely change their minds through discussion. Almost all people believe what their community believes. We create self-supporting communities to convince each of us that we are “acceptable” in our own group. Look it up. There’s tons of research to verify this. People change when they find that those already IN their community are different than they thought they were. In other words, kind of like osmosis. It’s not ‘I like your ideas therefore I like you,’ it’s ‘I like you, therefore your ideas might be worth considering.’

    Second: I’m surprised that no one has raised the issue of women’s rights here, as well as slavery, which was, of course supported by even NT authors. Our faith is a reflection of our culture, not the other way around (although there is a certain amount of feedback loop), and we have LOTS of different cultures represented in the US. But MOST of them have adapted to the monogamous tradition that, of course, comes out of economics and the ownership of women and the subsequent power of reproduction, not romance, spirituality, faith, etc. Women, children and slaves were all part of the economics of agriculture and patriarchy. The biblical narrative reflects that. Monogamy was an IMPROVEMENT over polygamy, which is so far removed from polyamory that it shouldn’t even be in the same conversation. Polyamory is about EVERYONE’s rights to their own bodies.

    Still an interesting (in a few cases) conversation. Not surprising about the # of “this is the truth and the way it is” posts about Christianity. Blame Constantine.

    • Ember Isle

      That was a delight to read. Thank you for sharing.

  • bowie1

    God’s design for marriage is still one man and one woman no matter what people are tempted to do. I suppose you could call this wife swapping which I heard about when I was a younger man but it is still sin no matter what people may feel. Naturally I would assume there could still be jealousy that their wife is with another man even if they agree to an “open marriage”. That’s the natural response in most cases and the cause of many divorces.

    • Ember Isle

      I have never been “swapped”, thanks.

      • Bill Ten Eyck

        I’m sure bowie1 had no idea that he was talking to you. Try to cut him a break.

        • Ember Isle

          S/he was speaking to anyone who reads the comment, no?

  • Andrew

    God never blessed polygamous marriage and you can quickly realize that by the destructive results that happened to those who practiced it throughout history. We have wars today because of the choices made by Abraham and Solomon thousands of years ago. Scripture assures us, our sin will find us out.

    • Ember Isle

      How are you defining “blessed”? Knowing nothing other than that they are a Christian couple, what longevity is necessary to consider their union blessed? Five years? Ten? Twenty?

    • ChrisDACase95

      So you say, but the Bible says otherwise.

      “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”
      2 Samuel 12:8.

      “Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. ”
      1 Kings 15:5.

  • Ray D.

    This is great satire.

    Oh, wait, it’s not satire. Someone actually believes this load of B.S.

    • Dean Bruckner

      It must be satire.

  • Richard Williams

    It’s time for the writer of this article to realize that their beliefs and the true Christian Church can not coexist as one because they are advocating for sin to be accepted.

  • Zach W. Lorton

    Homosexuality is sin.
    Polyamory is sin.
    Bearing false witness by claiming to be a gender other than what God desigbed you to be is sin.

    How is ANY of this unclear?

    The question is not whether anyone who practices these lifestyle choices can have a relationship with God — of course they can. But to suggest. that this is something God smiles upon is ludicrous. I don’t need to search my feelings on the Nashville Statement to come to that conclusion; I need only read the Bible.

    • ChrisDACase95

      “And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”
      2 Samuel 12:8.

      “Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. ”
      1 Kings 15:5.

  • Keith Fretz

    Basically, this entire site treats Christianity like a club of fans of an imaginary friend named God, where whatever rules you make up are fine because there really is no god at all, jus human invention.

  • Keith Fretz

    The big thing is that sexual practices IS NOT LOVE. If you can have sex without love and love without sex, they are two different things. The boy who sexually assaulted me when I was six DID NOT LOVE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rape is sex without live. Couples who for various cannot be together physically have love without sex. Love is not sex misspelled.Polyamory is sex, not love. Prostitutes are polyamorous. Polyamory is not love.

    • http://hippieheretic.com/ Chuck McKnight

      I agree with you that love and sex are not the same thing. But you’re simply misunderstanding polyamory to say that it is sex, rather than love. Polyamory is indeed about love and relationship first and foremost. Sex may (or may not) be a part of it. But if sex is involved, it is because it stems from the love and relationship there.

  • Keith Fretz

    I have no issue with sexless polyamory. Sexual activiity is a whole ‘nother ball of wax, and outside of heterosexual marriage is not permissible.

    • http://hippieheretic.com/ Chuck McKnight

      Absolutely! It happens all the time. Not every romantic relationship is a sexual one.

  • Judyallbrite

    Nope

  • Keith Fretz

    Sexless polyamory is a key part of the New Testament. This article, however is not discussing that. The article is about erotic polyamory and is highly sexual in nature. Jesus specifically said that if you even look at another with lust in your heart you have already committed adultery with that person. (Yes, he said man looking at a woman, but I do not believe gender inclusive language is a stretch.) No lust, fine. Lust, No Way!

  • Mike Spencer

    Amazing. You people have nothing. No evidence that your selfish desires have any basis in reality. Just the lust of the flesh, impure and simple. You have nothing.

  • Mr. Meow

    LGBTQ, Trans, now Poly. I applaud the fact that you and Mrs. Chuck came out of the closet and publically declared your infidelity! Will you guys be wanting your own separate public toilets too?

    “Additionally, there are many more faithful Christians who either feel that they are poly or feel drawn to see if they are, but they’re not sure whether it is compatible with their faith.”
    Newsflash Chuck: every guy on planet earth is “drawn” to polyamory or whatever you call it. That’s why guys watch porn, stare at women with big boobs or wonder what it would be like to have sex with women who are NOT their wife, etc.. Christians are told in the bible all this is bad. It’s called “fornication”, “lust” and a bunch of other names.
    Also, running around on your wife banging other chicks… that’s called “adultery” Chuck. I’m pretty sure adultery or “defiling the marriage bed” is a sin.
    So “exploring non-monogamous sexual relationships”, isn’t compatible with Christianity.
    Finally, you should have a read of the bible Chuck. You’ll notice it’s loaded with all kinds of cautionary stories about guys who thought poly was cool and the unfortunate consequences of their shenanigans (unwanted children, infanticide, family feuds, murder and all that). Pretty eye-opening stuff.

  • Low_Kwat

    Polygamous “Christians” ought to be physically suppressed
    .

  • Luc

    All that “God did not reject Abraham etc …” stuff is absurd. God never rejects anyone. Even Judas. We reject him when we sin and He does everything He can to help us come back. But He cannot help us if we refuse to admit that we did wrong hence that we need to change.

  • Dean Bruckner

    This is a joke, right? A guy trying to troll both real Christians and sexual anarchists?

  • Errol Marks

    Hey I am all for what you are saying, as long as you give me a scriptural basis for the same. You can’t give me reasons like there are polyamorous people, so we need to accept them or there are many polyamorous people out there and hence will result in growth in the churches.
    Always look to scripture!!! What does the bible say about this?

  • AnnMarie Michaels

    Ummm…. NO. Replace the word “polyamory” with “pedophilia” and see how that plays. Things are taboo for a reason: It’s wrong.

    • http://hippieheretic.com/ Chuck McKnight

      Pedophilia is not wrong because it is taboo. Pedophilia is wrong because it violates consent and harms children. Not so with polyamory. The two could not be more dissimilar.

      • AnnMarie Michaels

        I would argue that children being raised by polyamorous parents also harms children.

        • http://hippieheretic.com/ Chuck McKnight

          On what data do you base this claim?