I don’t hate to tell you “I told you so.” In fact, I love it when I am vindicated. For years I have been saying on this blog that AFTER denominations and churches affirm and bless gay marriage they will have to eventually affirm and bless polyamory/polygamy.
Let me say here with emphasis…Here I AM NOT making any value judgements about LGBTQ lifestyles OUTSIDE Christianity. I am NOT talking about what should or should not be legal. I am ONLY talking about church life.
According to Religion News Service (you can find it using a search engine) one major Protestant “mainline” denomination is facing a controversy about polyamory. That denomination allows clergy to be married monogamously even in same-sex unions. However, in light of evidence that some clergy within the denomination are involved in polyamorous relationships, the denomination is planning to vote on a resolution to limit marriages to monogamy.
In response, two or three groups of people within the denomination are planning to oppose the resolution and are campaigning against it. All mutually loving, voluntary sexual relationships are valid within Christianity, they argue. None should be called sinful and excluded.
And why not? After all, they point out, the Bible nowhere condemns polygamy. The argument that polygamy always harms women is invalid against polyamory because it can and sometimes does include three women. The crucial qualification is “mutual, voluntary and loving.”
I predict that that denomination will eventually have to recognize and affirm polyamorous “marriages” even among its clergy. The trajectory is already set. It will happen. It must happen. When? I give it ten years at most.
Can you think of any reason why the denomination should emphatically and forever exclude polyamory among its clergy? (Keep in mind that it already includes and blesses gay unions among clergy.)
*Note: If you choose to comment, make sure your comment is relatively brief (no more than 100 words), on topic, addressed to me, civil and respectful (not hostile or argumentative), and devoid of pictures or links.*










