At the 227th General Assembly this summer, the PC(USA) may consider an overture that seeks to clarify expectations for clergy relationships. The proposal, submitted by the Presbytery of Sierra Blanca, would add language to the Book of Order requiring that ministers who are engaged in sexual relationships live in monogamous ones, while also calling for pastoral resources for those exiting polyamorous or polygamous relationships.
As an Episcopal priest and a researcher who has conducted qualitative research with polyamorous Christians alongside engagement with contemporary scholarship, I approach questions about non-monogamy from within the broader theological conversation now unfolding across multiple denominations. The questions raised by this overture are ones that all mainline denominations will need to address in the coming years, as non-monogamous relationships continue to gain more visibility within the United States.
The language may unintentionally illustrate a recurring challenge in Christian sexual ethics: the tendency to regulate the form of relationships rather than cultivating the ethical substance of them.
The overture expresses concern for women, children and historically marginalized peoples. Yet a closer look suggests that the language may unintentionally illustrate a recurring challenge in Christian sexual ethics: the tendency to regulate the form of relationships rather than cultivating the ethical substance of them.
The first problem of definition
The overture defines polyamory or polygamy as “the simultaneous maintenance of multiple legal or emotional relationships by one person.” This definition is strikingly broad. However, the legal emphasis seems to address marriage, so I will begin there.
As historian Stephanie Coontz argues in Marriage, a History, monogamous marriage has existed as an institution for centuries but has shifted many times in regards to how it is understood ethically and relationally depending on social, economic and cultural contexts. As philosopher Elizabeth Brake writes in Minimizing Marriage, the current model in the United States for marriage – one based on romance and relational satisfaction – is in many ways a historical anomaly.
Even today, however, relational networks rarely fit neatly into the categories that we have constructed around marriage and romantic partnership. Under this overture’s definition, many of these ordinary relational arrangements could potentially fall under suspicion: a divorced parent co-parenting with a former spouse while in a new partnership; chosen family networks that share caregiving responsibilities; or even lifelong emotionally intimate friendships maintained alongside marriage.
Relational networks rarely fit neatly into the categories that we have constructed around marriage and romantic partnership.
When relational standards are written in language this broad, they risk becoming difficult to enforce consistently. Historically, vague moral standards within church governance have often functioned less as clear ethical guidance and more as discretionary tools applied unevenly depending on circumstance.
A second problem: Defining “sexual nature”
A second ambiguity in the proposed language raises another practical difficulty: the requirement that ministers who are “engaged in any relationship of a sexual nature” live in monogamous ones. Yet defining what constitutes a relationship “of a sexual nature” is far more complicated than it might initially appear.
Sociologists studying sexual behavior have repeatedly observed that individuals differ widely in how they define sex itself. Activities that some people experience as sexual others may interpret as affectionate, playful, or relationally intimate without sexual intent.
Individuals differ widely in how they define sex itself.
This raises a practical question for ecclesial policy: how would a church determine whether a relationship is “of a sexual nature”? Different individuals – and different church authorities – might answer these questions very differently.
Furthermore, do churches want to be in the position of defining specific acts as “sex”? (Besides leading to potentially embarrassing floor debates, these definitions, too, may change rapidly.)
In articulating ethical frameworks for clergy relationships, focusing on consent, honesty and the responsible use of power will ultimately prove more workable than attempting to define and regulate sexual activity itself.
Harm, power, and where they actually occur
The overture also suggests that polyamory and polygamy “can create power imbalances, emotional harm, and spiritual confusion, particularly for women, children, and historically marginalized persons.”
All relationships involve power dynamics that must be attended to. The church should be concerned with harm within these dynamics. But power imbalances are not unique to polyamorous relationships.
In fact, research consistently shows that most domestic violence occurs within socially accepted (monogamous) family structures. Of course, these statistics do not imply that monogamous marriage is inherently harmful! Instead, they reveal something crucial: relationship structure alone does not determine whether a relationship is safe or abusive.
Relationship structure alone does not determine whether a relationship is safe or abusive.
Focusing narrowly on polyamory risks misidentifying the source of the problem and laying the blame on an already-vulnerable population, namely, polyamorists, who already face social stigma for their relationships and for whom limited legal protections are available. A more effective approach would address the dynamics that produce harm: secrecy, coercion, unequal financial structures, lack of accountability, and the misuse of authority.
Biblical norms and the diversity of Scripture
The overture further appeals to what it calls “the biblical and confessional norm of exclusive, committed and monogamous covenant as the sole context for sexual intimacy.”
The biblical witness itself reflects a far more complex reality. The Hebrew Bible includes numerous examples of polygamous households (see Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon). These stories are often fraught with conflict, but they are nonetheless part of the narrative fabric of Scripture rather than clear violations of a universal marital rule.
While Jesus speaks about marriage in ways that emphasize covenantal fidelity (particularly in ways that would protect women from being divorced at the husband’s leisure and left destitute), he also described the Kingdom of Heaven as a place where people will not “marry or be given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30).
Several centuries later, Augustine explained in De Bono Coniugali that polygamy among the patriarchs was not inherently sinful, making a point that sociological research continues to confirm: marriage is not static but shaped by cultural context.
The biblical tradition, therefore, presents … a wide range of arrangements shaped by particular historical contexts.
The biblical tradition, therefore, presents not a single relational template but a wide range of arrangements shaped by particular historical contexts. What remains consistent across these texts is not the numerical structure of relationships but the ethical expectations within them: faithfulness, justice, mutual care and covenantal responsibility.
The church’s recurring pattern
Historically, Christian communities have often focused on regulating relational structures rather than cultivating relational ethics.
Debates over divorce, interracial marriage and same-sex relationships followed similar trajectories. In each case, unfamiliar relational forms were initially framed as moral crises threatening social stability.
The current conversation about polyamory represents another instance in which churches must decide whether to focus primarily on regulating relational forms or to take on the more difficult yet more effective work of forming people capable of sustaining ethical, life-giving relationships.
Churches must decide whether to focus primarily on regulating relational forms or to take on the more difficult yet more effective work of forming people capable of sustaining ethical, life-giving relationships.
On this point, polyamorists may actually be a source of wisdom for churches. Sociologist Elisabeth Sheff argues in The Polyamorists Next Door that many polyamorous households develop highly intentional practices around communication, negotiation, and conflict resolution precisely because their relationships lack clear cultural scripts.
Some psychological studies have shown that individuals practicing consensual non-monogamy often report higher levels of explicit communication about boundaries and expectations, practices associated with relationship stability across relational forms.
As has so frequently been the case in church history, those whom churches single out as “other” may actually be those who can invite the church into a deeper understanding of living out the teachings of Jesus, if only the church will listen.
A more constructive path
If protecting vulnerable people is the church’s goal – and it should be – there are more effective ways to pursue that goal, rather than simply taking aim at polyamory and polygamy. Pastoral resources could focus on recognizing unhealthy relational patterns regardless of structure. Most importantly, mainline denominations could start talking about sex and sexuality in a way that is spiritually formative and honest. Such measures would do far more to protect women and children than simply prohibiting non-monogamy.
Christian sexual ethics has always been about more than counting partners. At its best, it has been about forming communities where relationships are marked by honesty, justice and mutual care. Those virtues – rather than any single relational structure – remain at the heart of the gospel’s vision for human life together.
