How do celebrity “open marriages” relate to the election?

Michelle Visage is a judge on the television show RuPaul’s Drag Race. She recently announced that she and her husband of twenty-eight years maintain an “open” marriage, in which they are free to have sexual relationships with other people. She claims that this arrangement strengthens their marriage.

She is just one of several celebrities who have recently publicized their “polyamorous” and open relationships. 

What does this subject have to do with the 2024 presidential election?

If you don’t believe the Bible

It is a common consensus today that America’s partisan divides are deeper than at any time since the Civil War. One reason is that the issues over which we are divided are as deeply polarizing as those that led to secession and the war that ensued.

As Erik Larson demonstrates in his #1 New York Times bestseller, The Demon of Unrest: A Saga of Hubris, Heartbreak, and Heroism at the Dawn of the Civil War, the war was fought primarily over the issues of slavery and states’ rights. One side was convinced that enslaving Africans was defensible on moral grounds and that they had the right as states to govern themselves on this economic and cultural issue as they wished. The other side was equally convinced that enslaving Africans was indefensible on moral grounds and that the federal government had the right to admit new states on the basis of their stance on this issue.

Each side was convinced that their side was right and that compromise with the other side was morally and pragmatically wrong.

Now let’s consider some moral and cultural questions dividing Americans today. If you’ve read my work for any length of time, you won’t be surprised that I believe strongly:

• Life begins at conception and is sacred until natural death. Elective abortion and euthanasia are, therefore, immoral.
• Sex should be reserved for one man and one woman in the covenant of marriage. Premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, same-sex sexual relationships, and pornography are therefore immoral.
• Marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman. Same-sex marriage, polyamory, and polygamy are therefore immoral.
• God creates humans as male and female. Sex-change surgeries and hormone “transitions,” “drag” activities and lifestyles, and biological men competing with women in sports are, therefore, immoral.

However, if you do not believe the Bible to be the authoritative word of God and seek to interpret it according to its intended objective meaning, you might believe just as strongly that:

• There is no universal scientific or philosophical consensus regarding when human “life” begins, so the mother should have complete autonomy to make abortion decisions. Similarly, there is no universal medical or philosophical consensus regarding when human life should end, so the individual should have complete autonomy to make end-of-life decisions.
• Like all other human activities, sexual activity should be permitted so long as it does not harm other people. Individuals should be free to engage with pornography and in consensual relations with others.
• Neither the state nor society has the objective moral right to define the genders (or even the number) of those who wish to be married.
• People purport to experience life along a spectrum of gender roles. Therefore, neither the state nor society has the objective moral right to restrict their gender choices and activities.

Now, as I have written often over the years, I believe there are very compelling reasons why each of these positions is wrong on the merits, apart from biblical and theological considerations. But many do not share my commitment to biblical authority and do not know or affirm these non-theological arguments. From their perspective, they are just as right and moral as I am wrong and immoral.

Five biblical steps forward

How, then, are we to lessen the acrimony of our day and encourage greater understanding, compassion, and unity? Let’s consider five biblical principles.

One: Understanding our culture is vital to changing it.

If we are ever to move past the partisan rancor and animosity that so deeply divides us, we will need to begin by seeking to understand the position and worldview of those who disagree with us.

• Jesus led the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well to faith in himself by beginning with water and leading her to “living water” (John 4).
• Philip began his conversation with the Ethiopian eunuch by explaining the biblical text the official was reading before turning their conversation to faith in Christ (Acts 8:26–40).
• Paul quoted the Hebrew Bible when he spoke in synagogues and Greek philosophers when he spoke to Greek philosophers (Acts 17:16–34).

The apostle testified:

Though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant of all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings (1 Corinthians 9:19–23).

To follow Paul’s example, let’s ask ourselves why people believe what they believe. Let’s pray for wisdom and discernment as we work to exegete our culture and understand its foundational assumptions and beliefs.

When we speak the cultural “language” of others, we are far more able to influence their beliefs and actions.

Two: We are not cultural warriors but cultural missionaries.

The other side is not our enemies but our fellow fallen human beings, people for whom Jesus died. As missionaries, we are called simply to share what we know with those who need to know it. We are “beggars helping beggars find bread.”

Three: Satan is the Enemy, not other people.

The devil “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8). He comes to steal, kill, and destroy (John 10:10) and has “blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4). As my friend John Stonestreet says, “Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have victims.”

Four: Those who do not know Christ are deceived and deserving of the truth.

Scripture teaches, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). Those who have received the truth of God by grace are called to “pay forward” this gift with those who have not yet received it. “Speaking the truth in love” is our urgent calling (Ephesians 4:15).

Five: We must use spiritual weapons to win spiritual battles.

All Christians are called to be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). At the same time, we recognize that only the Spirit can convict of sin and save souls. Only he can defeat the Enemy in the spiritual conflict of our day (Ephesians 6:12–18). Our job is to build relationships with others, share the truth in God’s power and leading, pray for those with whom we share it, and trust God for the results.

“We have sinned and done wrong”

When Nehemiah learned of the devastation of Jerusalem, he wept, mourned, fasted, and prayed for God to forgive his people and himself (Nehemiah 1:6), identifying with those he sought to serve: “We have acted very corruptly against you” (v. 7). Daniel did the same, admitting to God that “we have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and rules” (Daniel 9:5).

Neither, so far as we know, committed the sins personally that they confessed collectively. But they saw themselves as part of a larger community and sought to serve their sisters and brothers through their witness, intercession, and empathy.

Most of us are far more flawed than Nehemiah and Daniel. If they could pray and act with such compassionate solidarity, so can we.

Will we?