Thursday, October 22, 2026

It's Thursday, October 22, 2026. I'm Albert Moeller, and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Of course, the midterm elections are just about on every mind as we're headed into the final stretch here, and some interesting things are happening. It's not to say it hasn't been interesting already, but last night there was a face-off between the main Senate candidates there in the state of Michigan. So that means former Representative Mike Rogers, who's the Republican nominee, was in a debate against Dr. Abdul Al-Sayed, and as you might expect, it got interesting. Now, this is where the story turns, because over the course of the last several months, the mainstream media has been basically saying there's nothing strange here. There's nothing to observe here. This is just a normal Senate campaign. But the presence of Dr. Abdul Al-Sayed as the Democratic nominee makes this a very different case and a very different story. And one of the big questions I had watching this is whether or not the mainstream media nationally and there in Michigan would kind of zero in on exactly what is taking place and what Dr. Al-Sayed actually represents. And, for instance, the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations, and we know exactly what these things mean, and members of his family have been contributors. This is a really interesting thing. This is a really interesting story, because as the days are running out, the sand is more or less running out of the hourglass in terms of midterm election. All of a sudden, some people are paying more attention. This came up in the debate last night, and it came up in a big way, because for one thing, the Republican candidate asked the Democratic candidate a pointed question, are you for America or are you for these terrorist groups overseas? And the astounding thing is that the Republican candidate asked the question and the Democratic candidate basically didn't answer. Now, you think about a U.S. Senate race. Let's just be very clear about what we're talking about. We're talking about a race for one of 100 seats in the United States Senate. We're talking about a statewide election in the state of Michigan. In the state of Michigan, it's been rather predictably blue in terms of partisan color for many recent election cycles. But when it comes to something like this, this is, well, it's very blue, but it's also out of the blue. We're talking about something that wouldn't have been expected even recently in American politics. And thus, we're looking at something that also is coming with other news reports. So, for example, the New York Times runs a piece, and it's by three reporters. Okay, so when the New York Times runs a piece like this, this close to an election, that's a big thing. When it is really by a team of reporters, this means a lot of people have been working on this. Here's the headline. Abdul Asaid confronts attacks on his faith and family ties. And the fact that this runs, and of course, it is not what you would call a hit piece. It's not coming from some kind of conservative news source. This is the nation's most influential newspaper of record raising the question. But one of the things the New York Times points out is that there is now evidence that the candidate's mother contributed to a fund that is very much associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist organizations. And you even have someone saying in this report of the charity to which she contributed, a counterterrorism consultant who's an expert witness in one case cited here, Evan Coleman, the New York Times quotes him as saying, that the charity was so small that all of its employees most likely knew about its activities. He added that the group was part of a global network whose leaders have been found to have previously sent money to Osama bin Laden. Quote, it was no secret that they were doing this, end quote. So it is going to be very interesting to see where this goes. But even as there have been statements made and you've had Republicans and others asking some big questions, the fact is that the Democratic candidate has now been asked a blunt question right out loud. Are you for America? Or are you for these terrorist groups overseas? And I don't know of any context in American politics where a candidate for the United States Senate has been asked that kind of question or anyone thought of asking that kind of question. But it just points to the fact we're in a very different moment in American politics. And this underlines the seriousness of this moment. And as we're looking at this, it's going to be very interesting in the next few days to see where this goes. But some people who were watching the debate last night, no doubt, were surprised and I think troubled by what they saw in the debate. And that's another very interesting thing is that the Detroit News, which is the newspaper of record there in Detroit, Michigan, has endorsed Mike Rogers, the Republican candidate for this U.S. Senate seat. That is no small thing. Interesting developments. We're going to watch them. Speaking of that, when it goes to the 2028 presidential election, I just want to tell you one thing we always want to think about when we're in a conversation about a midterm election like this. Everybody's concentrating on it and everyone with an eye for the White House is paying very close attention. And there's going to be a lot of attention to the presidential nomination race in both parties as soon as the midterm elections are over. But because there's an incumbent Republican president, Republican President Donald J. Trump, the fact is that the very fact that President Trump is in office and will be in office for two more years puts a damper on the Republican side. That's like putting a putting a little firewall up for now. So the interesting activity is not going to be on the Republican Party side for some time. It's going to be on the Democratic Party side. And that's going to be on the Republican Party side for some time. And Susan Page, who's the Washington bureau chief for USA Today, she writes that the potential 2028 field is now now just brace for this evolving on the left. So as we're thinking about Abdul al-Sayed and you're thinking about several other major candidates identified either with the Democratic Socialists of America or receiving support from the Democratic Socialists of America, as you're looking at some of these other candidates and they're all going to be there are some who actually have a combination of a Muslim identity and the DSA affiliation or support. It really is a very interesting new development. Now, Susan Page is making the argument that even when you look at some of the candidates who have been either in previous Democratic cycles or talked about in anticipation of the coming Democratic nomination cycle, it turns out that some of those people are now sounding more left than they sounded just a matter of, say, an election cycle ago. So one of the big things to watch in politics and worldview terms is not just where people are, but where they are going. And as you're looking at human beings, you are looking at people who, well, they're not always absolutely consistent. And not only that, when it's in a political context and they're looking at the need for developing political support, well, they're going to have to go where that support is or they're not going to be viable candidates. That tells you that the Democratic candidates and the ones who may have the most interest in the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, at least a good number of them, understand they're going to have to shift left because the Democratic Party is shifting left. That's a big thing for us to know. It's not so much because I think most listeners to the briefing are going to be actively involved in the Democratic presidential race, because I think we need to understand that when you look at our cultural, political worldview landscape, the fact that one of the two major parties is likely now to be shifting considerably to the left and fast. I think that's very interesting. The fact that USA Today is noticing this. And as Susan Page here observes, you're talking about prominent Democrats having to watch these developments and take them very seriously. Now, I will make one other statement here, and that means that many of them are not going to make any statement. They're not going to make any clear move until the midterm elections are over. One of the big questions is, what in the world is going to happen in a race like the Senate race in Michigan? That will determine at least a lot of how the prospective Democratic presidential candidates on the other side of the midterm elections decide to start positioning themselves. At the very least, we know in advance, it's going to be interesting. All right, I want to shift gears because we need to talk about something that isn't particularly easy to talk about, but it's necessary to talk about. The word is polyamory. And the reason we're talking about it is because there is big news when it comes to polyamory and some who claim Christian identity. And what we're looking at here is the fact that the predictions that many of us made at the time, that for example, the sexual revolution would lead to other things. And one thing leads to another. All you have to think about is LGBTQ plus sign. There are things to come. And this is not just about sex, however, and marriage and human relationships. We'll talk about what's more in just a moment. But it is about that. So even when you look at the Obergefell decision, legalizing same-sex marriage, that's a huge deal. And it was handed down in 2015. It was a big deal because many of us said at the time, if you can redefine marriage in terms of gender or sex, then you can certainly redefine it in terms of number. I mean, the number is less significant, certainly in historical terms, than the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman, a resolutely heterosexual institution. But when you had the Supreme Court say, and of course, remember, the majority opinion was written by former Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Remember, he expressed this in terms of an internal knowledge and the fact that fairness needs to prevail. And if someone who has a heterosexual attraction can marry someone and receive the benefits of marriage, then it will be unfair. And then he actually made the jump astoundingly to unconstitutional to forbid a man and a man to marry or a woman and a woman to marry. Many of us at the time said this is something that will destabilize the entire society. And there were those at the time who said no. But it is interesting that even in very recent times, books have appeared from people on the cultural left and by the way, I don't mean the radical left. I'm not talking about the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America or Maoists or avowed Marxist. No, I'm talking about people who are part of the liberal political establishment in the United States. Some of them are now openly acknowledging, as one said, there is no teleology. Now, we talk about the fact that they are denying ontology, which means reality, as in male and female. They're now also saying there's no teleology. There is no defined end point. There is nothing that is the last thing in this series. That's why LGBTQ is followed in so many cases by a plus sign. And one of the pluses we've known for a long time, in fact, we could see this even in 2015, is what is now called polyamory. And the reason I say it's called that now is because the traditional word that was used in most legal contexts in the Western world was polygamy, because the main model was one man with plural wives. And of course, this is a part of not only what we see in the Old Testament, a part of many civilizations around the world. It was also a part of American controversy. And it came into the U.S. Constitution, because of the looming question of the entry of the state of Utah as a state in the Union. And in order for Utah to become a state, you know, founded by and so shaped by Mormonism committed to plural marriage or polygamy, the Constitution was changed so as to make polygamy unconstitutional in the United States. So that is when all of a sudden a miraculous vision came to Mormon leaders, and it was completely a coincidence. But nonetheless, the timing was such that then Utah could enter into the Union. But ever since then, you have had very few references to polygamy or what is now called polyamory in much of American society. Some of the radicals in the 1960s, some of the hippies were arguing for destabilizing marriage and a sexual revolution in which basically all the relics of limitation in the past would be done away with and everything would be permitted. But the fact is, it was noted even at the time that, well, at least on the part of most women, they really didn't want to share a man. And so even in the sexual revolution, even the hippies ended up being, first of all, overwhelmingly heterosexual and then overwhelmingly also, well, here's the word for it, married pretty conventionally. And so that's a television sitcom staple for several of the last decades. But what we have now is in worldview terms, the unraveling of an entire civilization. It's an unraveling to the point that you now have arguments for polyamory and polygamy. Okay, that would be interesting if it's true in the culture. The reason we're talking about it today is because of a major article that has appeared in the Christian Century in the October 2026 issue, an article by David Congdon, who is a modern ethicist in terms of liberal Christianity. And that's what the Christian Century represents. The Christian Century is the flagship magazine historically of Protestant liberalism. And back in the day when the Protestant liberals were the mainline Protestants, the Christian Century was one of the most influential religious magazines in the United States. But it, in its October 2026 issue, has run an article entitled "Understanding Polyamory: Alternatives to Monogamous Marriage Are Going Mainstream: How Will Christians Respond?" Okay, I also want to suggest to you that it's a very interesting worldview indication when people openly ask a question. Because it's a different thing to ask a question and to answer it, but there is an inevitability to certain answers if a question gets asked. So in other words, in the Christian Century, if you're asking how should Christians respond, it's not going to be with a flat "no." That would make no sense. The editors would not choose an article in which they're going to answer "no" to polyamory. Instead, it just shows up here in a very different form. So it's interesting because we're told here that by this author in this article, which has such prominence in the Christian Century, we are told that the world is changing when it comes to polyamory and at least some Christians. In 2023, he says, "Christopher M. Gleason published American Poly: The First Scholarly History of American Explorations in Polyamory and Non-Monogamy." There's the other term, non-monogamy. How do you like that? "A few months later, Molly Roden Winter's bestselling book, A Memoir of Open Marriage, presented a brutally honest picture of the ups and downs of an open relationship, what was once more commonly referred to as free love." There are the hippies again. That's where they come in. "Around the same time, NBC began airing a new reality show called Couple to Thruple on Peacock. TLC got in the action, he says, in 2025 with the reality show Polyfamory. Right on cue, he writes, a number of think pieces came out reflecting on what polyamory might mean for the state of Western society." He goes on saying the conversation now has to include a new vocabulary, polyamory, he says, "has an image problem given that many on first encounter conflate it with polygamy." So yeah, that's why we're troubled because it sounds like polygamy. No, just think of what's going on here. Polyamory means multiple loves. And by the way, that does refer to romance and relationships and sexual activity. He writes, "As anyone who has tried to define one's relationship knows, using the right terminology is very important. And when it comes to the subject of polyamory, most people need a glossary." End quote. So get ready for a glossary. Here's the vocabulary. He writes, quote, "While polygamy means many spouses, polyamory, which literally means many loves, was coined in 1935 and 1992 to refer to the increasingly common practice of consensually having more than one romantic partner. Romantic partner often means sexual partner as well, but these are not strictly identical. Those within the broad polyamorous, often abbreviated as poly or polyam community, have varying degrees of fastidiousness regarding language use. Some insist that the word polyamory should be restricted to loving romantic relationships. Those who remain romantically monogamous but allow for other sexual partners typically fall under the umbrella terms of consensual or ethical non-monogamy." Okay, I'm going to stop there for a moment. When you take a word like monogamy and you put a non in front of it, you are turning the world upside down. There's a reason why mono, as in one, as in monotheism, one god, and monogamy, meaning one spouse, you put non in front of that and you end up with, as I say, the entire world turned upside down. Other terms in here, we are told that one activist popped the word monogamish, you know, like large-ish, in order to say, kind of sort of monogamy, but not exactly monogamy, "to refer to variations on monogamy that allow for some level of sexual intimacy with others." You also have a language of coupledom instead, of course, of marriage. Okay, so as we look at this, we come to understand that if the Christian Century is writing an article like this, in which the argument is coming right out that the church is going to need to come to terms with this, and this is just the way the world's going, and by the way, it's a matter of liberation, it's a matter of affirmation, it's a matter of understanding that there are rights involved here, and the church, this is their argument, is going to have to come to terms with this and come up with the right response, which presumably would mean polyamorous or polygamist relationships just being welcomed in the church. Okay, now this writer understands that there are some likely obstacles to that. One of them would be the Roman Catholic Church. And for instance, the Roman Catholic Church sees the marriage of a man and a woman within the church not only as an institution of marriage, but as a sacrament. And so you would think the Roman Catholic Church would be real clear on this, and the Roman Catholic Church is. As a matter of fact, even more recently, the Vatican has released a document called "Una Caro," "One Flesh," on polygamy. But the point about this article in the Christian Century is that here is a writer who's saying, "You know, I know the Vatican looks tough on this, but I think there are ways around even the Vatican. I think there are even Catholic arguments that can be made." And the reason why we mention this is because that's exactly what happens on the abortion issue, where the Roman Catholic Church is abundantly clear about the moral status of abortion, but you have liberal Catholics that go out and say, "Well, you know, there's a precedent here, there's a quotation there," and they misrepresent Catholicism. But nonetheless, it's interesting that this writer goes there. And then furthermore, he sees mainline Protestants, liberal Protestants, as the most likely place where the pro-polyamory position is likely to emerge. And I will say that's exactly right. And so he writes this, quote, "Mainline Protestants who already embrace same-sex relationships within the Church don't necessarily see Adam and Eve in Genesis or the marital analogy in Ephesians as normative templates for marriage in the first place," end quote. Okay, that's what we really need to know. That line in this article is gold because of what it reveals. And so here you'll notice that this author is saying, "You know, if you're looking for a group that's likely in religious terms to move towards polyamory and the affirmation and embrace of polyamory, mainline Protestants are the good place to go because they have already decided that Adam and Eve and Genesis aren't normative, authoritative, and they've already decided that the marital analogy in Ephesians from the apostle Paul isn't normative for our understanding of marriage here on earth." And so, in other words, you don't have to have a bride and a bridegroom. You can have a bride and a bride, you can have a bridegroom and a bridegroom, and presumably this also means you can have a bride and a bride and a bridegroom or any permutation thereof. It is interesting, of course, that in an article like this published in the Christian Century, the writer does recognize there is likely to be a lot of opposition. It's interesting that he has a book coming out in a matter of months, the title of which is "Polytheology in Praise of Unnatural Love." Okay, so you get gotta love candor. You know, even when someone just says out loud, this is what I'm doing, he even names it unnatural love. And you know where he's going when the title of the book is polytheology. Okay, so just looking at this, it's important for us to see not so much that this is likely to be an issue of discussion among evangelical Christians. Let me be clear. I don't think there's any immediate concern about evangelicals failing to do the math on marriage, male and female, one male, one female, monogamy as the complete expectation. But we just need to note how the entire society changes in two ways. Number one, the society is losing its ability to say no to anything. And so when you have the emergence of polyamory here, well, why not? And that plus sign won't end with polyamory. There are already other things that, don't worry, I'm not even going to mention today on the briefing, but there are other things that will have to follow because if sexual liberation is your worldview and your attitude, then you're going to have to follow it. And if you're not absolutely determined that any restriction on human romantic and sexual relationships or imagination or activities is a form of oppression, if you buy into that, then you can't stop with anything. You can't stop with same-sex marriage. You can't stop with a sexual revolution. You can't stop with redefining marriage in terms of male and female. Now it's got to be marriage in terms of number. And furthermore, this is something we already see. We already see where some municipalities in the United States are moving to de-center marriage and to recognize in legal terms multiple partners within a domestic setting. And so this is already happening in terms of some locales, and not by surprise. Many of these are taking place in communities very close to major college campuses, very close to major metropolitan areas that are by definition generally more liberal. And it's going to be interesting to see where this goes. And here's another thing to note. When it comes to a lot of these definitional issues, our political system assigns those issues to the United States. And so it's going to be interesting to see where this goes. And so it's going to be very interesting to see where in state governments you start to see the initiative towards this. But I wanted to deal with this article because it doesn't appear in Time magazine. It doesn't appear even in the Los Angeles Times. It appears in the Christian Century. So let's just mark for a moment the fact that this is an absolute theological disaster. It's an absolute biblical disaster. But we should not be surprised because liberal Protestantism has been denying biblicalism for a long time. And so it's going to be interesting to see where this authority and openly denying the clear teachings of Scripture for a very long time. But there's another big thing here, and that is the fact that even beyond Scripture, behind Scripture, God has implanted a moral knowledge of these things within the universe itself, within the cosmos. And so even in terms of a natural knowledge, even the natural law, there's a very clear understanding of these things. So the people making these proposals have to come out not only against the clear teachings of Scripture, they also increasingly have to come out and acknowledge we're going to have to reject every natural law teaching as well. Now, I don't want to let that pass, even in the stack of articles I have here right now, without understanding what a concession that is. What a concession that is. Already we're at the point where the liberals are more or less conceding, you know, when you look at the New Testament in particular, and then you look at Jesus defining marriage, do you not know that from the beginning, this is what Moses said marriage is? God's intention was that it be the union of a man and a woman for a lifetime. It was very clear. And so now you have the open statement, we're just rejecting biblical authority because we don't believe that's binding on us. That's kind of the story of liberal Protestantism and liberal theology. But now they're even at the point of saying, you know, when it comes to polyamory or polygamy or any go. And so it's going to be interesting to see where this All right, another major article on this and also pushing it and pushing it in terms of ethical acceptability. It offers a vocabulary of types of non-monogamy. So I'm just going to list them. I'm not even going to go through the definitions. Just listen to the terms. Polyamory, a quad, a V, solo polyamory, polyfidelity, open relationships, monogamous, swinging, polygamy, and relational anarchy. I'm ending on that because I think that's the only honest statement in all of this relationship, anarchy. Because at the end of the day, the rebellion against God, the rebellion against the Creator, the rebellion against creation order, the rebellion against the gospel, and the rebellion against God's Word basically comes down to the word anarchy. And this is where it all leads. So if you're thinking about LGBTQ and other issues of moral dissent as well, you look at that plus sign, that plus sign just might be rightly identified as an A for anarchy. And here we've been told it right out loud. Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information, go to my website at albertmohler.com. You can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.com forward slash albertmohler. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com. I'm speaking to you for a live audience here on the campus of Boyce College and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. And I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.