By / Jul 8

You probably missed it, but last week The New York Times reported that a city in Massachusetts decided, once again, to broaden the legal definition of marriage. During a recent City Council meeting, elected officials in the city of Somerville opted to expand protections previously reserved for married couples to those participating in polyamorous relationships. In other words, adults engaged in intimate relationships with multiple partners are now able to claim the privileges and benefits of marriage with more than one person.

According to the article, citizens of Somerville participating in “consenting relationships with multiple partners” are now able to do things like share insurance plans, make hospital visits, and take advantage of other benefits granted to married couples in Massachusetts. But make no mistake, this is about much more than expanding certain privileges or creating legal loopholes. In choosing to normalize polyamory, the elected officials in Somerville have once again advanced the effort to fundamentally redefine the nature of marriage and the family in the United States.

This is something that Christians should not only lament but oppose. 

The vital role of marriage

Marriage is a sacred institution. It was God who instituted the first marriage (Gen. 2:18-25), and marriage as an institution is filled with purpose and meaning. Marriage exists for human flourishing. Man and woman coming together in a covenant not only promise to love, sacrifice, and care for one another’s needs, but together they are able to create and nurture children as a result of their union. It is only through marriage that human beings can rightly fulfill the commission God gave to mankind to “be fruitful and multiply” and to “fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28). Not only this, but marriage was always meant to be a symbol, something infused with the deepest meaning, that points beyond itself to an even greater union: the union of Christ and the church (Eph. 5:32).

While the spirit of the age says that love comes in all forms, the truth is that sexual libertinism is a false gospel.

Even those outside of the Christian faith are able to recognize the vital role of marriage in society. Healthy marriages yield healthy families. Healthy families yield healthy children. And children represent the future of society. Every society has a critical interest in seeing marriages and families flourish in order to safeguard its future. But ever since the Obergefell ruling in 2015 legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, our society has been locked in a protracted battle over the nature of marriage and human sexuality. 

The devastating implications

The long-held consensus that marriage was defined only as the union of one man and one woman for one lifetime is now gone. But the integrity of marriage in the United States began to erode long before the first court granted same-sex couples the right to marry. Arguably, it can be traced back at least as far as the advent of no-fault divorce laws. Even so, leading up to Obergefell defenders of traditional marriage marshalled their best arguments to keep the integrity of the institution intact, but in the end it was not enough. 

The implications of the ruling were immediately apparent. If marriage is no longer based on its traditional definition, that is, if marriage is no longer understood to be a conjugal, procreative, permanent union, what reason is there to refrain from further expanding its definition? Last week a city council in Massachusetts answered that question. There isn’t one. At least there doesn’t seem to be.

It is deeply regrettable that our society has forfeited the integrity of the institution of marriage. But it would be even worse to further erode its significance in American life. Our society is ill-prepared to deal with the cavalcade of questions and confusion that would follow the legal sanction of polyamory, especially the innumerable consequences these relationships will bear upon our nation’s children. How are courts to determine what happens to the children as a result of the dissolution of polyamorous “marriage”? And how are children supposed to understand the nurture, permanence, and acceptance of a family if their pool of “parents” are able to expand or contract at random?

For these and many other reasons, Christians must oppose further attempts to expand the definition of marriage. While the spirit of the age says that love comes in all forms, the truth is that sexual libertinism is a false gospel. No kind of sexual experience can truly satisfy if it runs contrary to God’s design. Instead of acquiescing to the currents of the sexual revolution, Christians must stand ready not only to reject the acceptance of polyamory but to continue to model for the world a better way.

Regardless of what happens in the culture, marriage must continue to be held in honor among the people of God (Heb. 13:4), because marriage itself is meant to point toward the gospel. Christians must continue to recognize marriage as a sacred institution, to embody the love, sacrifice, and commitment that defines it, and to demonstrate that the roles of mothers and fathers in the lives of their children are not fungible. 

Seeking to legally sanction polyamory by calling it marriage is a tragic error. And destroying marriage in American culture will have devastating consequences. But the good news is, Christians are not called to take their cues from the culture but from the Scriptures. And the biblical witness about marriage is unchanged.

By / Oct 18

When I first heard the term “polyamory,” it sounded like one of those eyebrow-raising issues you hear about on daytime talk-shows—shocking, extreme, and on the fringe.[1] Less than a decade later, it’s creeping out of the shadows and into the mainstream, and even into the church.

What is polyamory? The word comes from both Greek and Latin and means, “many loves.” Essentially, it’s an arrangement between a (usually) married couple in which one or both spouses agree to have other romantic and sexual relationships, also known as an “open marriage.” As one source defined it, polyamory consists of “consensually non-monogamous relationships.”

The prevalence of polyamory among professing Christians recently came to the forefront. In the days following the roll out of the conservative evangelical Nashville Statement, and the counter-ideological Christians United Statement, one man asked a rather valid question: Why do LBGT-affirming churches fail to give public support for polyamorous unions?

The author, Chuck McKnight, describes his marriage as polyamorous and laments the fact that churches provide “next-to-no spiritual support” for the “thousands of faithful Christians” in their congregations with open marriages.[2] McKnight’s final exhortation for poly-inclusive churches claims, “[P]olyamory is here, and it is growing—regardless of what we may personally think about it.”

Within the Christian worldview the authority to define marriage belongs to God alone

As shocking as his claim may be, polyamory among professing Christians is just one more manifestation of an increasingly common mindset.  

Is it biblically unconscionable? Completely.

Is it theologically incongruent? No doubt.

But is this really new? Not quite.

Whether we’re talking about polyamory or monogamy, homosexual or heterosexual marriage, you can boil down every perspective of marriage and human sexuality to the same foundational issues: authority, belief, and worship.

Authority: Where it all begins

Everyone grounds his or her perspective of marriage and sexuality in someone’s authority. Whoever has that authority has the right to define what a marriage is and how human sexuality ought to be expressed.

For someone in a polyamorous relationship, authority is in that person’s sexual desires. And the definition of marriage follows. Even the definition of fidelity adapts to the individual. The polyamory-promoting website,, assures that an open marriage isn’t unfaithfulness, since neither spouse is breaking the pre-established rules: “If you aren’t breaking the rules of your relationship, you are not cheating, by definition.”

So, the two spouses have the authority to define what marital faithfulness is and is not. This definition comes from believing that they have the authority to define their marriage according to their personal desires. And if marriage were simply a social contract with mutually agreed upon terms prescribed by the individuals involved, that might be true.

Within the Christian worldview, however, the authority to define marriage belongs to God alone. God created humanity (Gen. 2:8, 19), sex (Gen. 2:24), and marriage (Gen. 2:24).[3] Therefore, only God has the authority to define both marriage and the right use of our sexuality (Matt. 19:4-6; Rom. 7:2-3; Heb. 13:4). And, his commands are for our good (Deut. 6:24; 1 Jn. 5:3). Therefore, every misuse of human sexuality expresses a denial of God’s authority and is always to our own detriment.[4] It all begins with authority.

Belief: Our response to authority

Authority directs belief. What you believe about human sexuality (both one’s actions and identification) is directly informed by the person or idea you believe has authority. Thus, when McKnight describes polyamory as a “relational orientation,” he is expressing a conviction about his own identity (belief), according to how he has defined himself (authority).

Interestingly, for McKnight, polyamory isn’t simply a lifestyle. Instead, he calls it a “relational orientation.” The language here is significant: Just as homosexuality is considered as a non-volitional, “born this way” identity, he regards polyamory as part of his identity, and subsequently, as who he was created to be. In other words, for the polyamorous person, non-monogamy is not just something you do, but something you are.

Plus, if polyamory is indeed an “orientation,” then demanding monogamy is not only unnatural[5], but contrary to his authentic self. The same concept applies to his description of professing Christians who “feel drawn to see if they are [polyamorous].” The ground for their identity—for who they believe themselves to be—comes from ascribing authority to their sexual desires to determine their decisions.[6]

We also see this principle in biblically based convictions about marriage and sexuality. If you believe God has authority to define what is good and right for humanity, then your beliefs about human sexuality—both in action and identification—will reflect your acknowledgment of his authority. When it comes to sexual integrity and marriage, the root issue is not primarily about what we do, but rather whom we believe.

The difference between the two ways of thinking goes all the way back to the garden (Gen. 3). The first slouch toward sin began with doubting the authority of (and motive for) what God said, which led to disbelieving what God said, then finally disobeying him completely. All sex outside the covenant of marriage includes this same deception—we are deceived about the happiness and freedom it promises us. We are deceived about the consequences it will bring us. We are even deceived about the very purpose of human sexuality and marriage altogether (Gen. 2:24; Eph. 5:22-33).

Belief follows authority.

Worship: The expression of belief

Worship expresses belief. What do you orient your whole life around? What purpose or person are you living for? What do you value and hold in such high honor and esteem that everything else in your life is defined according to it? Whatever it is—or whomever it is—that’s what you worship.

God created and redeemed us to worship and glorify him (Is. 43:1-7; Jn 4:21-24; Rom. 12:1-2; Eph. 1:1-14; 1 Cor. 10:31; Rev. 4:8-11). This worship encompasses everything we are—including our sexuality—and is to the exclusion of everything and everyone else.

Even more, God created sexuality and marriage so that we would know and worship him.  The entire point of marriage is to display the spiritual reality of Christ and his church (Eph. 5:22-33). God gave us marriage so that we could know him and understand concepts like an exclusive covenant relationship and faithfulness.[7]  Throughout the Old Testament, faithfulness to the Lord was compared to faithfulness in marriage (Is. 54:5; Jer. 3:20; Ezek. 16; Hos.). The only way one could justify polyamory is if the Lord said he was OK with his people worshipping other gods since, after all, serving him exclusively was too much to ask! Adultery—even mutually consented adultery[8]—distorts the purpose for which God created marriage.

Every choice we make with our God-given sexuality is an expression of worship (Rom. 12:1-2). [9]

Let all who have this hope

The presence of polyamory among professing believers is yet another manifestation of a culturally accommodating Christianity that seeks to worship the Lord on its own terms. Yet, it is also a reminder that true children of God are called to be set apart for him alone, to live under his supreme authority, to believe his good and life-giving commands, and to worship him with all of our being.

When it comes to discussing sexual integrity, faithful Christ-followers will sound like a broken record. That’s because our song of redemption proclaims the excellencies of him who called us out of darkness and into his marvelous light (1 Pt. 2:9).

Let all who have this hope in him, purify themselves, just as he is pure. (1 Jn. 3:3)


[1]I’m indebted to Dr. Evan Lenow and his graduate course, “The Christian Home.” Dr. Lenow predicted that Christians would need to address polyamory years before it became a culturally familiar term.

[2]For some eye-opening evidence of this, check out Terri Stovall’s “The Secret Lives of Christian Swingers”, especially the comments.

[3]Marriage defined and used in this post to mean a lifelong covenant unto the Lord between one man and one woman.

[4] Some would point to the presence of polygamy in the Bible to support extramarital relationships, or refute arguments against polyamory or swinging. While biblical law restrained human sinfulness and regulated the cultural practice of polygamy/polygyny among God’s people (Ex. 21:7-11; Deut. 21:15-17), his design for marriage never adapted to the ancient Near Eastern culture. In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus (the fulfillment of God’s law himself) addresses the practice of giving a woman a certificate of divorce, noting that, while God permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts, it was never his design: “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.” God’s law regulated polygamy/polygyny among his people, but it was not his original plan. It is also significant that Isaac, the child of the covenant that God promised Abraham, was born to Sarah, Abraham’s first wife (Gen. 18).

[5]The idea that monogamy is “unnatural” is nothing new. A few years ago, CNN featured an op-ed arguing that one partner for life went against our own biology.

[6]The same line of logic is often found in arguments supporting same-sex relationships among professing Christians. See God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines (Convergent Books, 2015).

[7]John Piper, “Sex and the Supremacy of Christ: Part One,” in Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds. (Crossway, 2005), 26-30.

[8]It is noteworthy that the only time “mutual consent” shows up in Scripture is in reference to the exclusive intimacy between a husband and wife (1 Cor. 7:5)

[9]Concerning sexual purity, Paul directly links sexual integrity to worship in Romans 1:21-26, specifically identifying homosexual sin as a manifestation of trading the truth of God for a lie and worshipping the creature instead of the Creator. In light of this, same-sex relationships and transgenderism are also distortions of the good design and purpose for which God created gender and sexuality (Gen. 1:26-29).

This article originally appeared here.