I haven’t been able to sign in and read the full article (some issue on their end), but I am really glad you are writing about this. I too came up within “purity culture” and see some of the critiques out there as valid, but I am thankful for what I was taught even if it wasn’t fully fleshed out or perfect. I’ve had a lot of similar thoughts, and you are articulating them well. Looking forward to reading more of what you write on this topic and the positive vision you have for a “new purity culture.”
"Purity" is too often thought of in terms of sexual purity. I think that says a lot about our modern obsession with sex.
But Jesus rarely mentions sex. He seems more concerned with mercy, generosity and forgiveness. Three topics that our modern culture might pay lip service to, but usually treats with contempt. How often do we see crowds demanding 'Justice!' (by which the mean 'Revenge!). Real justice is about forming and maintaining right relationships, not about punishing wrong-doing. That's how God can be both Just, and merciful toward those who repent. Repentance and forgiveness are the highest form of Justice; punishment is what happens when the best response is refused.
I would LOVE to see a genuinely Christian 'Purity' break out in our society; a 'Purity' that apologises for offences instead of defending them; that makes restitution when the powerful harm the weak; that sees the wealthy gladly paying to feed the hungry instead of paying other wealthy people to minimise their tax liabilities.
😢 “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart.”
That’s escalation, not avoidance. :/ In your estimation, why is it helpful to think of Jesus as being more concerned about one “miasma” than another? Jesus came to set the whole person right in integrity and andamiantos from the heart outwards. :)
First, a clarification. I didn't say that Jesus considered some sins worse than others. 'Relative severity of sinfulness' a topic for a different forum. I said 'seemed more concerned about', in that he spoke on those other subjects at greater length. Perhaps because he considered those sins were more common, or perhaps more likely to do greater damage.
My point was that 'Purity' campaigns so often go for the 'soft targets' in society, but don't challenge more deep-seated problems.
Hi Bob. When I saw your comment come through I wondered what I mistyped. But no, my question still stands. Why do you believe it’s helpful to think of the Scriptures this way? Why not instead tremble at the Words Jesus spoke and meditate upon them, and be grateful that He has fulfilled all things rather than get out an abacus to compare the topic to verse ratio and obscure the intensity of what was spoken? (I hope my hyperbole helps to emphasize my point and question) :)
Jesus said mighty and impossible things about this subject. Perhaps He didn’t say more than what was already said becuse the more went without saying in His culture. Paul was speaking into a culture more like ours and so had more opportunity to opine, so perhaps is marks sense so should we? Both were concerned about the integrity of the heart of who would be consumed by such “defilements.” Oh that our hearts be made new and for His Kingdom to come alive in us. Douglas makes a great reply on this topic in the comments on this article, for your meditation and consideration. Thanks. 😊
I'm not sure what you mean when you say I "think of Scriptures in this way". What way? My 'way' of thinking of Scripture is to try to understand what they are saying to me, and in this I try to understand context, context, context, just as you do when you note that aul spoke to a difference audience from those Jesus spoke to.
Your hyperbole certainly emphasises your point :), but more as underlining than as explanation; I'm not confident of exactly what that point is. Perhaps I'm too pedestrian, but my default is to think that what Jesus tells me once is important, what he tells me ten times is even more important. Noticing intensity is good, noticing repetition of that intensity is better.
I agree with you, that the audience Paul was speaking to is more like ours, and the fact that Paul was writing specifically in the context of where his readers were going wrong makes his advice even more relevant to us. So look at what Paul speaks against when he lists 'defilements'. First is a failure to live out 'the obedience of faith', as he bookends his letter to the Romans. I take that to be not just one 'typical' sin or another, but the entire lifestyle. Within that Paul includes sexual sins, but no more markedly than wickedness, covetousness, malice, envy, strife, murder, deceit, and even GOSSIP.
I would suggest that Paul best sums up what we should consider a 'pure' life is one which works for the benefit of others, just as Christ did. Thus he tells the Galatians "Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ."
Thus Paul's idea of 'purity' is not what sins we avoid, so much as what love and support we show for each other. Purity is a life of positives, not negatives. Therefore I agree with the point you make in your first post when you said "Jesus came to set the whole person right in integrity".
I subscribe to First Things so was happily able to read the entire article, which I thought was wonderfully balanced and therefore Biblical in its approach. Purity Culture was very legalistic and took sex entirely out of the wider context of Christian discipleship. As ever Sam gets the scriptural perspective - not to mention that of CS Lewis - entirely and helpfully right.
Purity (chastity) is as old as Christianity and a subvirtue of temperance. If you can’t fathom and pursue it in its simple sexual expression, you will surely not pursue it in its greater spiritual dimension.
As a former evangelical kid, grown into an evangelical mom, converted to an Orthodox mom and grandmother: you don't have to reinvent the wheel. The constant "new scheme" in evangelicalism makes kids feel like we don't know what we are doing and that our culture is not a serious or lasting bulwark. Confession, fasting, alms, the cycle of the Christian year with its themes of repentance, radical transformation, and years of patient and humble submission to the calling of God is unchanged since the disciples of Jesus Christ and His apostles began to do and to write them down. We have something beautiful and enduring, and it's being redone as Veggie Tales and passed off as the real thing.
It's difficult to establish a "purity culture" when there are so few practitioners and so many high profile abusers of it (i.e. our President and his religious advisor)
This may be one of the most important things you could write about. The focus on the Pro-Life movement rarely has an equal focus on sexual purity. If there was more of the latter there would less need to focus on the former.
I agree! But that is only 'before the event'. We also need to apply compassion
after the event'.
It seems (I say only 'seems') that too many pro-life act as if a child is somehow 'punishment'. It shouldn't be so. Certainly abortions would be much less frequent if there was less casual sex going on; but they would also be much less frequent if they were not so often dictated by the economics of the situation. Many abortions are carried out because the costs of a live birth would impoverish not only the mother, but also the child under her care.
So if we really believe that every child is entitled to life, why are we so reluctant to make that child's life one in which health care and education are as good as what we would want for our own children?
I suspect that in many cases, the answer to this is that we only love the unwanted child so long it costs us nothing to do so. If the government funded free health care, 'maternity allowance' to mothers of pre-schoolers, living expenses and quality education up to (say) age 18, then there would be far fewer abortions. But then, most pro-lifers would scream "Socialism!' and vote to close down any such initiative.
I haven’t been able to sign in and read the full article (some issue on their end), but I am really glad you are writing about this. I too came up within “purity culture” and see some of the critiques out there as valid, but I am thankful for what I was taught even if it wasn’t fully fleshed out or perfect. I’ve had a lot of similar thoughts, and you are articulating them well. Looking forward to reading more of what you write on this topic and the positive vision you have for a “new purity culture.”
"Purity" is too often thought of in terms of sexual purity. I think that says a lot about our modern obsession with sex.
But Jesus rarely mentions sex. He seems more concerned with mercy, generosity and forgiveness. Three topics that our modern culture might pay lip service to, but usually treats with contempt. How often do we see crowds demanding 'Justice!' (by which the mean 'Revenge!). Real justice is about forming and maintaining right relationships, not about punishing wrong-doing. That's how God can be both Just, and merciful toward those who repent. Repentance and forgiveness are the highest form of Justice; punishment is what happens when the best response is refused.
I would LOVE to see a genuinely Christian 'Purity' break out in our society; a 'Purity' that apologises for offences instead of defending them; that makes restitution when the powerful harm the weak; that sees the wealthy gladly paying to feed the hungry instead of paying other wealthy people to minimise their tax liabilities.
Oh, if only!
😢 “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart.”
That’s escalation, not avoidance. :/ In your estimation, why is it helpful to think of Jesus as being more concerned about one “miasma” than another? Jesus came to set the whole person right in integrity and andamiantos from the heart outwards. :)
Hi Jonathan,
First, a clarification. I didn't say that Jesus considered some sins worse than others. 'Relative severity of sinfulness' a topic for a different forum. I said 'seemed more concerned about', in that he spoke on those other subjects at greater length. Perhaps because he considered those sins were more common, or perhaps more likely to do greater damage.
My point was that 'Purity' campaigns so often go for the 'soft targets' in society, but don't challenge more deep-seated problems.
Hi Bob. When I saw your comment come through I wondered what I mistyped. But no, my question still stands. Why do you believe it’s helpful to think of the Scriptures this way? Why not instead tremble at the Words Jesus spoke and meditate upon them, and be grateful that He has fulfilled all things rather than get out an abacus to compare the topic to verse ratio and obscure the intensity of what was spoken? (I hope my hyperbole helps to emphasize my point and question) :)
Jesus said mighty and impossible things about this subject. Perhaps He didn’t say more than what was already said becuse the more went without saying in His culture. Paul was speaking into a culture more like ours and so had more opportunity to opine, so perhaps is marks sense so should we? Both were concerned about the integrity of the heart of who would be consumed by such “defilements.” Oh that our hearts be made new and for His Kingdom to come alive in us. Douglas makes a great reply on this topic in the comments on this article, for your meditation and consideration. Thanks. 😊
Hi Jonathan,
I'm not sure what you mean when you say I "think of Scriptures in this way". What way? My 'way' of thinking of Scripture is to try to understand what they are saying to me, and in this I try to understand context, context, context, just as you do when you note that aul spoke to a difference audience from those Jesus spoke to.
Your hyperbole certainly emphasises your point :), but more as underlining than as explanation; I'm not confident of exactly what that point is. Perhaps I'm too pedestrian, but my default is to think that what Jesus tells me once is important, what he tells me ten times is even more important. Noticing intensity is good, noticing repetition of that intensity is better.
I agree with you, that the audience Paul was speaking to is more like ours, and the fact that Paul was writing specifically in the context of where his readers were going wrong makes his advice even more relevant to us. So look at what Paul speaks against when he lists 'defilements'. First is a failure to live out 'the obedience of faith', as he bookends his letter to the Romans. I take that to be not just one 'typical' sin or another, but the entire lifestyle. Within that Paul includes sexual sins, but no more markedly than wickedness, covetousness, malice, envy, strife, murder, deceit, and even GOSSIP.
I would suggest that Paul best sums up what we should consider a 'pure' life is one which works for the benefit of others, just as Christ did. Thus he tells the Galatians "Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ."
Thus Paul's idea of 'purity' is not what sins we avoid, so much as what love and support we show for each other. Purity is a life of positives, not negatives. Therefore I agree with the point you make in your first post when you said "Jesus came to set the whole person right in integrity".
I hope this corrects any impression of imbalance,
Bob
I subscribe to First Things so was happily able to read the entire article, which I thought was wonderfully balanced and therefore Biblical in its approach. Purity Culture was very legalistic and took sex entirely out of the wider context of Christian discipleship. As ever Sam gets the scriptural perspective - not to mention that of CS Lewis - entirely and helpfully right.
Purity (chastity) is as old as Christianity and a subvirtue of temperance. If you can’t fathom and pursue it in its simple sexual expression, you will surely not pursue it in its greater spiritual dimension.
As a former evangelical kid, grown into an evangelical mom, converted to an Orthodox mom and grandmother: you don't have to reinvent the wheel. The constant "new scheme" in evangelicalism makes kids feel like we don't know what we are doing and that our culture is not a serious or lasting bulwark. Confession, fasting, alms, the cycle of the Christian year with its themes of repentance, radical transformation, and years of patient and humble submission to the calling of God is unchanged since the disciples of Jesus Christ and His apostles began to do and to write them down. We have something beautiful and enduring, and it's being redone as Veggie Tales and passed off as the real thing.
It's difficult to establish a "purity culture" when there are so few practitioners and so many high profile abusers of it (i.e. our President and his religious advisor)
Thanks for the “like” Sebastian.
This may be one of the most important things you could write about. The focus on the Pro-Life movement rarely has an equal focus on sexual purity. If there was more of the latter there would less need to focus on the former.
Hi John,
I agree! But that is only 'before the event'. We also need to apply compassion
after the event'.
It seems (I say only 'seems') that too many pro-life act as if a child is somehow 'punishment'. It shouldn't be so. Certainly abortions would be much less frequent if there was less casual sex going on; but they would also be much less frequent if they were not so often dictated by the economics of the situation. Many abortions are carried out because the costs of a live birth would impoverish not only the mother, but also the child under her care.
So if we really believe that every child is entitled to life, why are we so reluctant to make that child's life one in which health care and education are as good as what we would want for our own children?
I suspect that in many cases, the answer to this is that we only love the unwanted child so long it costs us nothing to do so. If the government funded free health care, 'maternity allowance' to mothers of pre-schoolers, living expenses and quality education up to (say) age 18, then there would be far fewer abortions. But then, most pro-lifers would scream "Socialism!' and vote to close down any such initiative.