Q. In 1998 the Anglican Church [Church of England] decided that a polygamous marriage was not an obstacle to membership of the church, as long as a man did not marry again after baptism. What is your opinion of this decision?
It is absurd. In fact, it's as ridiculous as telling a homosexual who is having sex with two or three other partners that he can carry on doing what he's doing so long as he doesn't engage in sex with any more men after he is baptised. Or telling a thief that he can carry on robbing the people he robbed before so long as he doesn't rob any new people after he is baptised.
Either polygamy is a sin or it isn't. If it isn't a sin then men and women should be allowed to enter into plural marriages after baptism as well as before. The Anglican declaration has nothing whatsoever to do with the Scriptures but is a political move, as are so many of its other 'innovations' like the ordination of women to their priesthood.
Give me a church (assembly) that says polygamy is a sin sincerely believing that that's what the Bible teaches than a church (assembly) that tap-dances to the world. The Church of England has, like so many established Protestant Churches, abandoned a Bible-centredness in favour of being politically correct.
Of course I am happy - very happy, in fact - that polygamous African Anglicans aren't being forced to tear their families into pieces, and for this we must be grateful. However, the question of compromise with the truth remains. What, for instance, if the Anglican Church baptised one of the polyandrous tribes of India (one woman with several husbands) - would they accept that arrangement too provided the woman didn't add any more husbands?
The essential problem of the Anglican Church is that it isn't (a) biblical, and (b) patriarchal. If it was biblical the problem of polygamy would be solved and it would simply be accepted. If it was patriarchal and apostolic it's theology and practice wouldn't fluctuate and change with the social moods of the time. But it isn't either of these as far as polygamy is concerned.
Having said this I have to say that there are (the polygamy question aside) many fine evangelical Anglicans who are, in every sense of the word, Bible-believing Christians who, whilst nevertheless tied down by some of their traditions, are still doing an excellent job of getting the message of Christ out. There is no doubt that Yahweh still uses this Church inspite of the liberalising tendencies that have virtually throttled it as a Christian institution. That it admits polygamous families must, in the end, be seen as a step in the right direction. My only fear is what it will admit next, the ordination of practicing homosexual priests being one of its many abominations. (This has since happened and the whole international Anglical communion is being ripped apart over such heretically divisive issues).