It wasn't a suggestion, it was a commandment: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." For thirty years the issues around sexual freedom, commitment and trust have been debated. Does monogamy matter? Does the Seventh Commandment make sense?

Adultery, fidelity, infidelity, monogamy, honesty: These words are surrounded by confusing rationalizations and interpretations. The deeper question is, what is at stake in this Commandment. What does it ask of us?

The dictionary defines adultery as "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse." The commandment speaks about a physical act, but does it also attempt to address the emotional risk of a breach of trust and a change in feelings?

Some question the contemporary relevance of this admonition, saying that the commandment reflects certain historic cultural mores in an ancient context, and even the Bible itself contains contradictions. Biblical history includes stories of ancestors who were not monogamous; men with many wives and concubines. So, how do the social mores of several thousand years ago inform our contemporary ideal of a committed monogamous relationship between two individuals?

A number of readers felt that the importance of being monogamous sexually was secondary to that of honesty. Both partners must be open in defining the boundaries, and then be committed to honoring them. Reader Bobby Gray writes:

The question of fidelity is more at issue here than "monogamy". Throughout history, different cultures have had many forms of sanctioned relationships - monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, etc. The ancient Hebrews did not practice monogamy. The bible recounts many instances where different "heroes" had many wives, concubines, female servants who they had children by, etc. These were not considered "adultery". Monogamy was just one part, one means, of ownership of women. Of guaranteeing that a male's property went to a male of his own "seed".

So the issue for some is not one's actions, but one's intentions. The real issue here is more about fidelity than sexual monogamy alone. What distinctions are there between fidelity and monogamy? Reader Evelyn Townsend writes:

Monogamy is one way of expressing a loving relationship. A non-monogamous primary relationship may not necessarily imply infidelity. There may be agreements made for one or the other or both members of a couple to explore other sexual outlets.

In fact, it is trust and respect that is more important in such a relationship, than being monogamous. For a couple to be reluctantly or angrily or sullenly monogamous is as unhealthy as one member having secret liaisons.

For most people a monogamous relationship is the most appropriate way for them to celebrate their love and commitment to one another. For others, it is possible to live in a less traditional state of love and commitment while still allowing for a responsible exploration of one or the other's individual sexuality.

It is even possible for one person to remain "faithful" while allowing the other to fulfill his or her personal needs, so long as both parties are in full agreement about the boundaries and the responsibilities of the person who is doing the "exploring."

Infidelity occurs when one partner breaks faith with the agreement, and is damaging to both parties in any true and loving relationship. One must finish a primary relationship that is not working before engaging in other liaisons. One must honor and respect their partner enough to make an end to it when that is appropriate.

If the core nature of an intimate relationship is a covenant to love and trust, what is the spiritual risk? Bobby Gray, again:

One does NOT unilaterally change the terms of the relational covenant (i.e., from monogamy to polygamy). This would be infidelity. And, as such, would probably end the original covenant all together. However, the opportunity within this situation for forgiveness, redemption, contriteness, etc. can actually be a creative spiritual force which can more firmly bond the relationship - rather than tear it apart.

If spiritual growth is part of the convenant of the relationship, then infidelity to that covenant is going to affect one's relationship to God. Infidelity to God is something that cannot be tolerated as evidenced by the constant reference to fidelity to God in both the Old and New Testaments. And yet, aren't most of us extremely "unfaithful" to God? Don't we put idols of Money, Ego, Sex, Power, Prestige, etc. in God's place? And ultimately, they take God's place permanently. Infidelity to God, therefore, as in any relationship, eventually destroys the relationship entirely.

Significant relationships are essentially about intimacy. It takes bravery and openness to create true intimacy and trust. How is our spirituality shaped by our relationship experiences? Conversely, how can spirituality shape our relationships? Duncan Martel writes,

Fidelity matters in the context of a relationship depends, almost wholly, on how much each partner is seeking to gain from that relationship, now "naked," emotionally, psychically and spiritually, each is willing to be with the other.

I have a number of gay male friends who have [only] "emotionally committed" relationships, and an equal number who practice fidelity not only emotionally but also physically. What works best for one individual, or one couple? I believe, at the root, it is a function of each person's "baggage," for lack of a better term, and ideas about relationships that each bring to the table.

For example, if I am going to bare my heart and soul and let someone entirely into my life, heart and soul in the context of a romantic relationship, I would not be comfortable with my partner seeking sexual pleasure with another. Perhaps, in the minds of some, I appear as strangely backward and even quaint in my traditionalism. But it is who I am and what I want. And, ultimately, what I would seek in a partner. If she cannot offer the same commitment to be with my solely, emotionally, spiritually and physically my one and only partner for the duration of the relationship, then I don't think I would want to pursue that relationship.

For me, that Seventh Commandment has always reflected practicality rather than dogmatism. It seems common sense that messing around outside of a relationship is courting trouble. It is hard to separate sexual expression from the desire for intimacy: where the body goes, the heart wants to go; and where the heart goes, the body wants to go.

Monogamy does require the occasional sacrifice, and it alone cannot assure a solid relationship, but as anyone who has ever suffered jealousy knows, a couple risks ending their relationship as a consequence of involvement with others.

Rick Johnson
Canon for Communication Ministry