Rich Tidwell, a protestant pastor in Canton, Missouri, has publicly defended having multiple wives and called the practice biblically justified, sparking online debate and a denial from a local Anglican congregation. He announced his second wife is expecting their eighth child and has published writings arguing polygyny appears in scripture without explicit prohibition. Church leaders told him their doctrine defines marriage as one man and one woman, and they refused to allow the family to participate in services. The dispute has thrust questions about scripture, tradition, and pastoral authority into a very public conversation.
Tidwell has been clear and unapologetic about his household. ‘I have two beautiful wives.’ appears in his public posts, and he followed that with a note of gratitude: “We’re thrilled for what the Lord has done for our family.” He frames the arrangement as polygyny, the term for one man married to multiple women, and he has published a piece titled “Plural marriage” laying out his view. That essay argues the Bible never outright bans the practice and even contains instances where multiple wives are granted or regulated.
He points to passages that, in his reading, regulate rather than forbid polygyny. One cited text says, “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.” Tidwell uses passages like that to argue the scriptures provided rules for husbands who took additional wives instead of condemning the practice outright. He also references historical examples in the Old Testament where leaders had multiple wives and offspring as part of their household structure.
At the heart of Tidwell’s argument is the claim that divine allowance in certain narratives implies moral acceptability. He wrote, “In 2019, I discovered the surprising fact that God not only never prohibited polygyny throughout the entire biblical narrative (as He did with polyandry or homosexuality), He divinely ordained it in several cases.” From that premise he reasons that if God provided multiple wives to notable men, then the practice was not labeled sin in Scripture and should not be treated as such today. That interpretation has triggered pushback from many corners of the church.
One of the more cited Old Testament passages in his discussion is a direct quote used to illustrate divine granting of household arrangements. The passage reads:
This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: “I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.”
Tidwell argues that these kinds of passages show early examples where multiple wives were part of God-ordained outcomes for individuals. He goes on to say plainly, “Then it was not and is not sin.” He also pushes back on objections that claim polygyny is not part of the original divine design, replying, “Neither is death, nor clothing, nor eating meat,” to suggest that cultural practices and realities evolve and scripture must be read with nuance.
The response from a local Anglican parish was decisive and formal. Tidwell shared a letter in which a representative wrote, “On multiple levels, polygamy is forbidden in our convictions, interpretation of Scripture, and the Canons and Constitution of the [Anglican Church of North America].” The letter also cited church law, quoting “Canon II.7: Of Christian Marriage, which defines marriage as a lifelong union of one man and one woman.” That parish then concluded, “These convictions are non-negotiable,” and added, “If you ever repent and become functionally and theologically monogamous, you are welcome to participate.”
Denied participation by that congregation, Tidwell has remained public about his family and his pastoral role. He serves as a pastor at a nondenominational church in Canton and continues to write and speak on his interpretation of scripture and family structure. The exchange reveals a gulf between some modern pastoral claims and longstanding denominational rules about marriage.
The debate raises broader questions for churches about how doctrine interacts with private life and public ministry. Congregations must weigh theological convictions against pastoral care, and individuals must weigh personal conviction against communal belonging. This incident is a vivid example of how contested readings of scripture can produce clear lines of inclusion and exclusion within church life.
