Recent remarks before the Ugandan Parliament by Martin Ssempa, pastor of (the now-closed) Makerere Community Church, caused much commotion, concern, and conversation within Uganda’s Christian community. The occasion was the current discussion and debate on the Marriage Bill. Ssempa, while appearing before parliament, pleaded for polygamy to be lawfully placed as an alternative to monogamy as a form of Christian marriage. But what is Ssempa’s reasoning, and does it reflect biblical teaching?
Ssempa’s Pragmatic Logic
We begin by acknowledging that Ssempa’s reasoning is pretty pragmatic. First, he argued that he knows from his experience that people—even his pastor friends—are polygamous in all but a marriage certificate. And his logic is pretty straightforward: why not have these ‘good Christians’ walk in the light? By this, he does not mean they forsake their polygamous behavior. Rather, people should enjoy their second and third wives without stigma or drama. In his view, a law that recognizes polygamy would ‘break the shame’ and prevent ‘Christian polygamists’ from going underground.
One may argue that the law already provides for shameless polygamy. Indeed, Ssempa would have, perhaps, engendered a few issues had he argued as a Muslim, Hindu, or even as a secularist. The current bill already accommodates polygamy under civil, customary, and Islamic marriage definitions. You could say that those who desire to pursue polygamy—even his pastor friends—need only go the customary, civil, or Islamic route. But such a solution would not appeal to Ssempa, who wants polygamy codified as Christian marriage.
Ssempa’s second pragmatic reason for promoting polygamy as a Christian marriage option is that doing so potentially deescalates family feuds between co-wives and their children—especially when the man dies. Polygamy, codified as Christian, is Ssempa’s ‘ceasefire’ strategy in a society riddled with family wrangles and ‘co-wife’ squabbles. Of course, one may find it wiser not to start fires that need ceasing afterward. But such a solution does not cut it for Ssempa.
Ssempa’s Problematic Theology
The main problem with Ssempa’s proposition may not be that he argues for polygamy. Many have done so. The issue is that as a pastor, he argues, as a theologian on relatively secular terms before those who perhaps expected better. That he argues from cultural and pragmatic grounds proves the poverty of his theological reflection on this matter. Ssempa’s main argument for polygamy is merely cultural. He thinks monogamy was nothing more than an imposition on Africans by European Missionaries whose countries of origin no longer have the moral authority to dictate morality to us, especially given their embrace of homosexuality—a worse evil (in his estimation). For Ssempa, polygamy is core to our culture as a continent, and it should be left so. Thus, the first problem with Ssempa’s theology of marriage is his lack of any biblical theology of marriage.
But Ssempa knows that people expect him to open the Bible on these matters as a pastor. And so, he offers Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon (heroes of faith as listed in Hebrews 11) as well-approved and ‘good’ polygamists.
Now, Abraham is a fascinating example to offer in support of polygamy. For starters, his one-night stand with his slave, Hagar, at the advice of his wife, Sarah, could hardly qualify as marriage (cf. Genesis 16:1-6). Then, his marriage to Keturah comes after the death of Sarah—a remarriage, not polygamy (cf. Genesis 25:1-4).
Granted. Jacob, David, and Solomon had many wives. But none had a marriage to make us envious of polygamy or even suggest such is a good idea. But the core issue with Ssempa’s interpretation of these Old Testament figures is his failure to distinguish between what the Bible reports and what it supports. The Bible might report David’s murder of Uriah for his wife, but we should not see this report as the Bible’s high-five to the man after God’s own heart. That is, the Bible does not always prescribe everything it describes. The problem with Ssempa’s logic is that it confuses what the Bible reports with what it supports.
Monogamy as the Ideal Marriage
One doubts that Ssempa has thought through what the Bible says about the meaning of marriage. Here’s why. Marriage appears first in the pages of Scripture at the beginning, where God made Eve for Adam (Gen 2:18-23). Ssempa might rightly note that God did not make a Steve for Adam. Fair enough. But Ssempa should equally see how there was no Betty for Adam besides Eve. That is, the first appearance of marriage in Scripture is monogamous. It is the only form of marriage we see before sin enters the stage. Had Ssempa thought theologically about marriage as the Bible presents it, he would have quickly noticed that polygamy is a lamentable accommodation to sin (I mean, look at Lamech—the first polygamist, cf. Genesis 4:19-24).
When responding to a question about divorce in Matthew 19:3-7, Jesus reinforces God’s monogamous intent for marriage in the pre-sin human state of Genesis. Genesis 2:24 insists that the poetic ecstasy of Adam at the sight of Eve is the reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. In Matthew 19:7, Jesus repeats this statement in Genesis but adds that the two shall become one flesh. So, they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
The keen person may have noticed that Jesus introduces the number two absent in the Genesis text to stress that the only one-flesh union God recognizes (and creation endorses) is one formed by two people—not three or four. For Jesus, God only joins the two in an indissoluble union until death. There is no other union God knows. Thus, Ssempa’s promotion of polygamy is a pragmatic punch in God’s plan for marriage.
Monogamy Points Beyond Society
Another major flaw in Ssempa’s theology of marriage (or lack thereof) is that it places man (both the male and humanity) at the heart of marriage, partly explaining why he could not answer whether he thinks a Christian wife should also take on other men as husbands.
Ssempa’s centering of marriage around humanity also explains his pragmatic reasoning, which ignores that human marriage is a shadow pointing to a reality far more glorious than lawfully enjoying the company of a co-wife. In Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul insists that the monogamous vision of marriage in Genesis 2 is a unique and visible portrait of the union between Christ and his Church. Marriage exists to point beyond itself to the glorious union of the Church to her monogamous groom—Christ. Only monogamy represents God’s unique and exclusive relationship with his people (cf. Ezekiel 16:8; Isaiah 54:5-8; Jeremiah 2:2-3; Hosea 2:16-20). Polygamy distorts God’s vision of and intention for marriage.
Indeed, as the Bible begins with a marriage of one man to one woman in a sinless state, the Bible ends with a monogamous marriage of one groom to one bride in a sinless state (Rev 21:2, 9; 22:17). Thus, contrary to Ssempa’s claims, monogamy is not an idea original to Western Missionaries. The missionaries copied well. Monogamy is God’s good idea. Polygamy is a perilous alternative. Thus, when we grasp the significance of marriage, we begin to understand why only monogamous marriage reflects the Christian idea and ideal.
Conclusion
Ssempa squandered the best opportunity to communicate the glorious meaning of marriage to the watching secular but sympathetic audience. Instead, he chose conformity to the standards of this world rather than transforming the public understanding of marriage from a perspective informed by God’s Word. I should say that those who do not appreciate or understand the symbolic significance of human marriage are free to embrace the Islamic, Civil, or customary options in which marriage is not so sacred. But they must leave Christian marriage to communicate the magnificent gospel of the monogamous union between Christ and the Church.