Is monogamy realistic?

[JoeCatch]

Today CNN ran the following story about new research that seems to demonstrate that monogamy is not a natural (i.e., from a biological standpoint). This actually is not the first such study I've heard of that comes to this conclusion, but I'm tossing this one out for discussion in light of the questions in the main TCL forum about the EKD's newly elected (divorced) bishop.

CNN Mate debate: Is monogamy realistic?

How should the church respond to such studies? What should our stance be, if this research turns out to be right, regarding monogamy? What if, for example, consenting adults in a polyamorous relationship or a couple who believed strongly in serial monogamy (i.e., they were fully committed to each other, but flat out disagreed in principle with the lifelong commitment implied in traditional marriage arrangements) wanted to take part in the life of one of our congregations? What would/should our response be?

If consenting adults make a conscientious choice to eschew lifelong monogamy in favor of other (perhaps more natural, if the research is to be believed) relationship arrangements, how should the church respond? Should they be welcomed unconditionally? Removed from our midst for setting a bad example to those who believe that lifelong monogamy is the only God-pleasing sexual arrangement? Welcomed but encouraged/expected to conform to traditional monogamist expectations?

Decades ago, a divorced--and especially a remarried--person would be persona non grata in many churches, but that's changed (though not without some upheaval and resentment from traditionalists). Recently, committed and monogamous same-gender couples have been winning acceptance in many Christian churches, including our own ELCA (though, again, without considerable upheaval and bitter resentment from traditionalists). Are polyamory and serial monogamy next? Have we opened a Pandora's box; does the acceptance of one sort of non-traditional relationship lead inevitably to the acceptance of all sorts of consensual arrangements that we never even really considered when making these changes? (The ethical principles outlined in the recently accepted social statement on human sexuality--respect, mutuality, trust, etc.--wouldn't necessarily rule them out.) And, if so, is this a bad thing?

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I would think the church's response is to stand firm. The sexuality document made it clear that there was a harsh expectation of monagomy (in fact, one might argue that is about the only boundaries it did establish). So I think we have a ways to go.

That said, we have lightened our stance on divorce and remarriage, and I cannot remember being somewhere that seriously enforced any form of discipline for sex outside of marriage and especially premarrital sex. So in some ways we might say this is steadily happening silently, but not on the basis of supporting it, just not opposing it (although that could let the problem in the back door). I think this goes more to the ELCA's general attempt to avoid conflict and overall stress towards communal ethics over individual ethics.

Personally, I do not think we should do this. Biological data is 1) ever changing, and 2) informing but not superior to biblical interpretation and theology. Basically, even if we are naturally inclined towards multiple mates/lovers/whatever, it does not excuse the act. Even if we were only naturally inclined to one mate, premarital sex, even a lustful look outside of marriage is still sinful even if it's nature. Basically speaking, we are a sinful people, it is inherant. Therefore my opinion is that we do not change on the scientific data, we may better understand why people struggle with this sin, but we do not make it ok because it is inherent.

Pax

 

[JoeCatch]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, doulos. A couple of questions for clarification:

1. You start out with the position that the church should "stand firm." What does standing firm look like? That is, if a polyamorous couple were to seek to join one of our churches, how would "standing firm" dictate that we respond? Does standing firm mean denying them membership? Extending membership invitations to them only on a conditional basis? Confronting them privately? Condemning their behavior publicly? Withholding communion from them? Refusing to baptize their children? It's easy to say "stand firm" in the abstract, but when that polyamorous couple actually shows up on a Sunday morning and the issue is no longer a mere abstraction, what actual form does standing firm take?

2. You claim that biology does not excuse multiple partners. Can we get clear on exactly what's wrong with non-monogamous relationships to begin with? Yes, the social statement on human sexuality does set a clear expectation of committed monogamy, but it's not entirely clear why it does. For instance, I'm looking at the bullet-point lists at the end of p. 8 and beginning of p. 9, and quite frankly I'm having trouble seeing how various sorts of polyamorous covenants would fail to fit the criteria outlined there. Can you say a bit more about why the church should consider these consensual relationships to be sinful?

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Be glad to Joe:
1) Standing Firm means that in the end, in the long term, we cannot candone the act. How and when this is addressed is a more contextual issue. Pastoral care should always take into account how to best reach and preach to the person. Whether this can happen at the instant they come in the doors, inquire on membership, or through preaching, it will depend. But it should happen, as should accountability on Christian living in other areas of life (where many opponents of homosexual activity oft fall short, expecting clear rules on that laid out instantly in the church but not other issues). Within a reasonable amount of time though, this issue needs to be addressed, and if ignored is then when you discuss issues of church discipline such as exclusion from the sacrament.
2) The first claim would be an understanding of Genesis 2, man and woman being made for a singular form of companionship. The next would be looking into the gospels at Jesus' understanding of adultry outside of looking at a woman other than his wife and other similar passages. The next are some of Paul's appeals particularly in regards to the ethical standards of church leadership (bishops and deacons) including being a "man of one wife". Finally it would be the practical look at polygamy in the Old Testament. In just about every situation it causes rift and rivalry. It simply is not practical or healthy.
There are certainly passages and examples that support non-monogomy, but to me it seems that overall the Bible does not see this as ideal or proper.

Pax