This summer’s General Assembly for the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) will consider many important topics, including a new confession. But most of the advanced conversation has focused on CON-10, a controversial overture submitted by the Presbytery of Sierra Blanca in New Mexico that would require clergy to be monogamous.
The overture aims to add an “authoritative interpretation” to the Book of Order’s stipulation that those engaged in a validated ministry shall “give evidence of theologically informed fidelity to God’s Word.” The proposed interpretation claims that fidelity to God’s Word involves displaying “moral character in all personal relationships,” including loving one’s neighbors, exhibiting patience, extending grace, and – most importantly – practicing monogamy in any sexual relationship.
The proposal has received considerable criticism for the way it attempts to pass off a significant amendment to the denomination’s constitution as a mere interpretation. As the Advisory Committee on the Constitution pointed out in their response, the proposed overture is introducing new moral language and behavioral expectations not currently in the constitution, and thus, the matter cannot be addressed in the form of an authoritative interpretation. CON-10 is trying to change the denomination without going through the proper channels.
As it turns out, avoiding the proper channels was the whole point.
Related reading: “Overture requiring PC(USA) ministers to be monogamous generates debate, confusion” by Gregg Brekke, Presbyterian Outlook reporting
On June 7, 2026, Richard Ackerman, the Gen Z YouTuber and Presbyterian influencer who posts under the name Redeemed Zoomer, revealed he was the author of the overture. The only problem is that presbyteries are the only legal body able to propose overtures to the General Assembly. By his own admission, Ackerman’s organization, Presbyterians for the Kingdom, sent the text to the Sierra Blanca Presbytery so they could propose it instead.
Ackerman’s stated mission is to reform the PC(USA) away from its slide into progressivism. As he stated in May 2025 on the platform known as X, the mainline denominations “have lost the influence due to their apostasy but the lights could easily go back on if they were to be retaken.” Taking back control of the PC(USA) away from those seeking a more socially just form of Christianity is his explicit goal.
In his video announcing his role in drafting CON-10, Ackerman says the issue of monogamy is “not a conservative versus liberal debate. This is a Christian versus blatant apostate debate.”
Is that really the case, though? The evidence is against Ackerman.
Problems with the traditional case
As someone who taught Reformed theology at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, where Ackerman is enrolled as a student, and has a forthcoming book from Fordham University Press developing a polyamorous theology, I am invested in this debate.
Ackerman seems to think the matter of monogamy – or what scholars call mononormativity, the notion that monogamy is or ought to be socially normative – is self-evident in light of the Bible and tradition, but ethical matters are rarely if ever self-evident.
The Bible is not especially helpful for Ackerman’s case, as even the Vatican points out in their recent document, Una Caro. The Hebrew Bible is full of polygamous patriarchs, and the canon as a whole offers far more support for slavery than monogamy. Therefore, being “biblical” hardly equates to being moral, much less normative. The Pastoral Epistles require church leaders (who are assumed to be male) to have one wife (1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6), but, at most, this rules out polygyny, not polyamory.
Related reading: “One flesh, one spouse: A clear standard for Presbyterian ministers” by Alexander Haines
Christian theology has not been any more successful. Tertullian, one of the earliest Christians to defend monogamy, based his argument on monotheism – the oneness of God translates into the oneness of one’s spouse – an idea used historically to support monarchical government. Augustine made an eschatological argument for monogamy based on the singularity of the heavenly city, but he equally acknowledged that the many nations streaming into God’s city supported polygamy. Ultimately, he asserted that monogamy was now mandated after the coming of Christ.
Tertullian and Augustine were primarily arguing for the goodness of marriage (against the requirement of celibacy) and against remarriage (digamy). Polyamory simply was not in view.
A Presbyterian case for polyamory
The Presbyterian tradition that Ackerman claims to respect contains a much more nuanced relationship to the Bible and tradition than he appears to allow.
The Book of Order begins by emphasizing the mission of the church, acknowledging that “the Church seeks a new openness to God’s mission in the world,” which includes “a new openness to God’s continuing reformation of the Church ecumenical” (F-1.0404). Insisting on timeless moral requirements for clergy is at odds with such openness.
The PC(USA) also gives individuals maximal latitude to make their own judgments. In discussing the historic principles of church order, the Book of Order declares that “God alone is Lord of the conscience,” a line taken from the Westminster Confession of Faith. From this, the denomination declares the “rights of private judgment” to be “universal and unalienable” (F-3.0101).
The PC(USA) determined years ago that the gender of a person is a matter of indifference when it comes to marriage and ordination. The same principle should apply to the question of a clergy member’s romantic or sexual life. As April Stace points out, there is a great risk in regulating matters over which people reasonably disagree. A member of the clergy who loves two partners is no less capable of preaching the message of God’s grace to humankind.
In fact, that person may even be more capable. At the root of mononormativity is the assumption that romantic love is a competitive, scarce good — something that a person can only share with one other. Romantically loving more than one person means that each can only receive a partial slice of the amorous pie, so to speak.
The mononormative conception of romantic love is conspicuously out of step with the Christian conception of God’s love. According to the Bible and Christian tradition, God’s love is not a scarce resource but an infinitely abundant good that only increases as it is shared. The Westminster Confession of Faith refers to God’s “infinite and perfect love.” God’s bestowal of grace upon one person does not lessen it for others.
Mononormativity, like heteronormativity, is also a hierarchical structure of power that excludes some from the circle of social respectability. Unlike compulsory monogamy, embracing polyamory does not require anyone to be polyamorous. As documents like the Confession of Belhar clearly indicate, inclusion, not exclusion, is more reflective of the PC(USA)’s vision of God’s liberating justice.
Related reading: “Polyamory, church policy and the limits of regulation” by April Stace
Denominations wrestling with polyamory need to ask themselves why their theology of romantic love should contradict their theology of divine love. If the gospel bears witness to a divine love for humanity that is noncompetitive and superabundant, why should churches insist that only a competitive and scarce account of human love is morally legitimate?
This GA, the PC(USA) will likely reject CON-10 and its Trojan horse attempt to “reform” the denomination by tying the question of monogamy to the confession of faith. But the deeper issue posed by Ackerman’s stunt is an important one for the church to take up in earnest — whether our sexual ethics will reflect the capacious, infinite, and open-ended grace of God according to the gospel, or be defined instead by the limited moral imagination of those engaged in the American culture wars.
The choice for the Presbyterian Church ought to be clear.
