Mitigating 21st-Century Relationships!

Throughout the history of discourse, what continues to astonish me the most in this era of open-source information and technological accessibility, is the lack of dialogue (especially in some church contexts) had on things that aren't necessarily found within the Biblical framework. Topics that would oft be labelled as 'secular' or 'unbiblical', yet crucial to human existence are side-swiped for reasons I and the few who share my ideas can only speculate. Society evolves and grows rapidly, although some parts (not excluding or limited to) certain churches remain static in their apathy/antagonism to a definite stance on these important matters. And now in contemporary society, progression has driven it (the church) towards a proverbial cross-road, each one pointing in a journey of reflection and contemplation on various issues they refuse to 'budge' on... -what issues?! You might ask. Issues like ethics of sex, sexuality, gender identity, relationships, marriage, pornography etc. have all (in a word) became 'fluid', -pun intended. Thus, I decided to challenge myself and you, my dear reader, by dedicating a new series of separate articles focused on making sense of these difficult issues. Picking up the pieces and putting them together.

A while ago, I had a very insightful discussion with a friend who (though unmarried) had an interesting perspective concerning monogamy. He felt that sexuality and love are in some instances mutually inclusive, and in others not. He thought that to stick with one partner in the exploration of one's sexuality isn't ideal, as not every sexual encounter is borne out of love [but erotic desire and/or attraction]. However, he felt that in the name of romantic (relational) love, monogamy is enough and in his perspective, also the healthier option. Hence, I would like to use his perspective as a point of departure for this article, in which I will be discussing the sensitive issue surrounding monogamy and polygamy to open the channel to new discourse about this difficult topic.

So, what do monogamy and polygamy mean? Both terms are of Greek origin: μ?νο? (monos) which means "alone/only/one [person] above all others" and πολυ (polu/y) means "many/much" while the latter word (in both cases), γ?μο? (gamos) means "wedding/marriage/wedlock". Thus, when someone considers themselves monogamous it means that they are married to, or uphold the value that marriage should exclusively be to a single person. Whereas if someone is described as polygamous it then refers to the fact that they are married to, or uphold the value that one can be legitimately married to multiple persons. In Western contexts, today, cases of polygamy are sparse because of the ancient Roman and Greek predominantly monogamous cultural influence on civilisation, which spread due to colonialism, however other cultures with a more indigenous or tribalistic (native/primal) heritage, especially in the Middle East, like the Jews and Persians, or in Africa like the Zulu's and Xhosa's practised polygamy long before Western colonialism and some remain polygamous even to this day.

The word polygamy, however, is a more broad and general term including all sexes and sexualities, but it is important to note that "polygamous" cultures were predominantly polygynous from the Greek πολυ (polu) "many/much" + γυν? (gunē) "women/wives" meaning a single man having several wives, rather than a woman having several husbands. Rather, the opposite term referring to a woman with several men/husbands is polyandry also from the Greek πολυ (polu) "many/much" + ?νδρε?ο? (andreios) meaning "of a man/manly/masculine". The main differences between these are merely context, gender and relational differences; polygamy & monogamy refers to a formalised marital relationship, whereas the terms like polygyny/monogyny & polyandry/monoandry seem to refer more to recreational courtships (dating) which are more representative of modern relationships. Today, many recreational forms of the aforementioned become ever more prevalent in modern society, because we have moved on (more or less) from an ancient patriarchal culture, otherwise known as a male ideological hegemony where men dictate the socio-cultural and economic position of women in male-dominant geographical contexts.

Today, both men and women get to decide whether they want "poly" relationships or "mono" relationships, with either men or women (or both)! This may seem exceedingly desensitizing and head rearing to a society who have, for centuries, been used to heterosexual monogamy, but there is nothing to be afraid of. These are merely normal anthropological phenomena of the ever-evolving human as a social mammal. We are experiencing a break of the traditional social constructs (man-made social rules) of what I'd like to call "traditional normativity", which is everything deemed acceptable according to traditionalist/conservative standards. The Reddit-user, "Alakazing", nonetheless, made it clear with his remark in the 'Showerthoughts' subreddit last year; "Most of tradition is just peer pressure from dead people." And he couldn't be more right, right? In our lifetime there are continuous sociopolitical/religious 'cock-fights' reaching news headlines between people of tradition versus those contemptuously regarded as "the others". Traditionalist contexts often spearhead this discourse by quoting Biblical passages such as Mark 10:6, Matthew 19:4 and Genesis 5:2 all denoting that "God made them, male and female" as an argument for hetero-normative monogamy (marriage between one man and one wife) as being "God-ordained".

Notwithstanding the hyper-literalistic interpretations of the above ancient texts, which I properly explain the context of more extensively in my article on homosexuality, their literary context imply nothing of absolute laws regarding sexuality/monogamy, but allow me posit it in this way: If I, for example, were to write a story reminiscing on a certain time when I walked a particular road; implying that my story states, "this road is the only road people ought to be walking and people shouldn't be walking other roads because that would not be using the demarcated road - which is absolutely the correct one." Can you imagine the visible confusion? Because that's not what it says, that's what you would think the story implies... Moreover, let's assume for argument's sake, this story does say that. And the Biblical texts above do imply that hetero-normative monogamy is God-ordained - what then are we to make of passages like the following?

"And he, Lamech, took for himself two wives: The name of the first was Adah and the name of the second was Zillah..."

"And when Esau was of forty years he then took for wives Judith, daughter from Beeri the Hittite and Basemath, daughter from Elon the Hittite."

"So Esau went to Ishmael and took Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael the son of Abraham, the sister of Nebayoth over his [current] wives for himself to be his wife."

Genesis 4:19; 26:34; 28:9 (Own Translation)

This was no strange arrangement in ancient Israel, to have more than one wife, provided the husband does not take precedence of one wife over the other(s) and also provided he be able to care (equal food, clothing and lodging) of every wife equally. Yet, these were just wives. It was also not uncommon for a man to marry one of his female slaves, or have several resident concubines ('unofficial' wives) as partners. However, such privileges were only available to the rich and powerful. An example of this can be found in 1 Kings 11:1-8 which states that Solomon had a great love for women from various nations and that he had 700 wives, 700 princesses and 300 concubines. So, even if these numbers are to be believed Solomon was not just Northern Israel's famous 'mad-king' but also History's unrivalled king of polygamy & polygyny, totalling 1700 lovers! And along with famous Biblical characters like brothers Jacob (who got wives from Laban in Genesis 29:28 & 30:3-5) and Esau who had three wives according to Genesis 26:34 & 28:9. Even the infamous Abraham had two wives Sarah and his maid Hagar in Genesis 16:1-3, along with many other characters. This indicates that the modern Biblical tradition contradicts itself unawares, as the very Christian tradition defending the Bible as a model for monogamous marriage in contemporary society seems to be uneducated on the historical fact that it promotes polygamy AND polygyny as the "collective absolute word of God" - huh?!.

Alas, before we get ahead of ourselves let's contextualise this for a moment. In the world of the Bible, women were seen as property. Independent of men, they had little to no social or economic status and couldn't own any assets (i.e. cattle, land, property, slaves etc.), therefore marital unions in light of Jewish law (Torah) were in essence what we know today as "transfers", which is a modern economic term referring to the movement of assets, monetary funds or property ownership rights from one account to another -obviously in those days bank accounts didn't exist- so the transfer happened between two individuals, usually, men shaking hands (outside in public) with witnesses to the 'legal' transaction. Sometimes, there were even formal documents drafted in marital transactions to serve as proof, but I go into more detail on this in pages 13-15 of my 2019 academic research paper, reviewing the sexual and marital ethics in Biblical theology. Although, what I also ought to add is that marriage was (as in the case of Solomon) also a way of cementing political alliances or settling disputes without the cost of war, yet this applied more to kings/public figures than it did to average citizens, even though there were also cases of average citizens using marriage to settle disputes, but there were simpler ways of resolving it - like a good ol' fistfight!

With that being said, monogamy was not an ethical concern in those days, until the Greeks invaded the Middle East and the social culture drastically changed, because when military leaders conquered another nation, they (as much as possible) tried to eviscerate the legacy of the former ruler, simultaneously implementing their legacy, and innocents just had to accept and follow suit. If not, they remain prisoners of war, or worst case scenario be tortured and/or executed! An accurate description and example of the destruction and trauma of such events can be found in the heart wrenching historical narrative and poetic prose, genre-text of Lamentations which depicts the trauma of the invasion and double destruction of Jerusalem around 589-587/6 B.C.E. by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and in 702/1 B.C.E. by King Sennacherib of Assyria.

After Jerusalem was conquered by the Greeks under the famous Alexander the Great in 198 B.C.E. after defeating the Persian Empire in that same period, Jerusalem then fell under the control and influence of Hellenistic Greek culture, established between the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C.E. until the rise of the Roman empire in 31 B.C.E. which is when Paul the Apostle's Theology on monogamous marital and sexual culture originated (even though he was celibate). This is why majority of the New Testament is written in Greek or to be exact, ?λληνικ?? Κοιν? (Hellēnikos Koinē) basically translating to "common Hellenic/Hellenic tongue of all" and not English, but then came Rome who conquered Jerusalem in 70 C.E. under leadership of the (then) future emperor, Military general Titus and his Lieutenant (or second-in-command) Tiberius Julius Alexander, who just so happened to be of Jewish descent.

Bearing this in mind as the cultural backdrop for Paul the Apostle; having much of his influence from Greco-Roman culture, especially in terms of sexuality and marriage as a well educated, Greek-speaking Jewish Pharisee with paternal Roman citizenship, it is clear that the Christian reformed tradition as we know it today (which originated in the 16th century) and societal narratives of sexual and relational normativity does not own the patent on sexual/relational monogamy, and neither does ancient Biblical theology. And yet, I still wish to add that this is not a green light to do what you want! Sexuality and Relationship are still deeply 'sacred' things and should be treated with care, as it is the most vulnerable aspects of human existence, yes, sex doesn't have to involve deep feelings of love and attachment. And yes, we may explore our sexuality in plurality, but with mutual responsibility and accountability to those involved -us and their- feelings. Always communicate your intentions, desires and needs - the right person would accept and embrace them.

This is how rapport and trust are built!