After my last post, there was a lot of discussion about
emotional purity doctrine, and I wound up reading a lot of articles and posts
that others have made on the topic. In
all of this, I was reminded that, while I have very strong beliefs about
emotional purity doctrine and am convinced I can back them up, I have never
really made them public in any concise form, only giving passing mention to
emotional purity in a
few previous posts. I will attempt to do so
now, again using outline form to make things easier to follow.
1.
Defining
Emotional Purity
a.
Sexual
Purity for the Heart: In a nutshell, emotional purity is the Biblical
concept of sexual purity applied to romantic feelings and other associated
emotions. Emotional purity’s proponents
say that it is not enough for a young person to save him or herself physically
(that is to say, sexually) for their future spouse, but that they must also
save themselves
emotionally as
well. While sexual purity teaches us
that sexual relations outside of or before marriage are sinful, emotional
purity teaches us that emotional attachments, attractions, and other romantic
feelings are also sinful outside of or before marriage. In both cases, things are taken to the level
of the heart. In
Matthew 5, Jesus taught
us that it is not good enough simply to abstain from sleeping around while
lusting after other people in our hearts: He said that if a man looks at a
woman and lusts after her, he has sinned already. Similarly, emotional purity does not merely
condemn overtly romantic gestures (cards, flowers, dates, etc), but goes down
to the heart level to condemn the feelings from which they arise: feelings of
attraction, emotional attachment, and romantic dreams and aspirations regarding
the other gender. Beyond this, both take
to extremes in the name of “saving oneself for a future spouse.” Extreme proponents of sexual purity regard it
as a necessity to save oneself sexually for one’s future spouse, and regard any
level of sexual impurity before marriage as “giving oneself away” and “being
used” to the end that such a person “has less to give to their future spouse.” In order to avoid this, legalistic cultures
spring up which rigorously ban anything deemed remotely sexual and several
things that aren’t. The same goes for
emotional purity, which holds that someone who has experience previous
emotional attractions or entanglements is less capable of loving their future
spouse because they have “given their heart away.” This has also frequently given rise to
legalistic cultures which ban not only openly romantic gestures but also a
number of non-romantic ones which they deem to have a corrupting influence.
b.
For
Singles Only: While there is no
formal statement that emotional purity applies only to singles, I have never
heard of or seen an example where the concept was applied to the married. This I find very strange, since it is
actually in a marriage relationship where one could argue emotional purity
makes the most sense (if a wife is entertaining romantic fantasies about a
coworker, her husband would justifiably be upset). Generally speaking, emotional purity is
applied to young men and women who have never been married, but plan on
becoming married some day. Indeed many
of the analogies and arguments of emotional purity would make little or no
sense if applied to someone who had previously been married (whether divorced
or widowed) or had determined to live a life of celibacy. This is unfortunately also true of many of
the approaches to sexual purity (though notably the Bible’s approaches to the
topic apply equally well to the single, celibate, married, and
widowed/divorced).
c.
Your
Mileage May Vary: Like extreme forms of sexual purity, there is no one
concrete form of emotional purity. Some
extreme proponents of sexual purity will tell young singles that they should
never kiss anyone who is not their husband, others that they should never hold
hands or hug, others that they should never do anything with a member of the
opposite sex they would not do with their biological sister (which is a bit
confusing for those of us who actually have biological sisters: I hug and kiss my biological sisters!). Each proponent has their own standard, which
is inevitable once people start taking things beyond what is taught in the
Bible (the Bible teaches us only not to have sex outside of marriage or
entertain lust outside of marriage—it does not mention hand-holding or
kissing!). With emotional purity things
are even more conflicted because the Bible does not even provide a baseline (as
will be discussed later). Emotional
purity proponents are all over the map as to what feelings constitute emotional
impurity and when romantic feelings can be entertained and how, etc. They also differ on enforcement of emotional
purity (rendering different answers to questions like: who decides when it’s
okay to have romantic feelings? How do
we deal with feelings that are emotionally impure? What steps should we take to avoid the
possibility of such feelings, etc?).
They also differ widely on the degree to which emotional purity is
enforced and (in my opinion) what travesties they are willing to commit in its
name (some of the below descriptions will not apply to every culture that
embraces emotional purity). In general,
though, they agree that romantic feelings, attractions, and entanglements are impure/sinful and that they should
be avoided and stamped out when they occur without authorization. They are also all unanimous on the bleak
picture of what will happen to those who fail to follow emotional purity.
d.
Culture
of Fear: One thing all emotional purity doctrine shares is an emphasis on
fear and a liberal use of scare-tactics.
i.
Fear of
the Other: In many emotional-purity cultures, the differences between the
genders are emphasized to the point where having normal friendly relations with
a member of the opposite sex would seem as difficult as communing with a
sentient squid. Many proponents will
even go a step farther and say that opposite sex friendships are impossible or
else doomed to fall into emotional impurity every single time. Men and women are trained to believe that
romantic feelings are hard-wired into them as the inevitable response to any
close contact with a member of the opposite sex. They are, of course, also taught to fear
these feelings because they are sinful/impure.
ii.
Fear of
Failure: A
common analogy in the emotional
purity world is to take a flower or some other object and tell a young audience
that this is their heart. The speaker
will then pluck a petal from the flower and tell their audience that this is
what happens when they fall in love/experience romantic attraction or feelings
for a member of the opposite sex. The
speaker will proceed to ruthlessly disassemble the flower in front of the
audience, perhaps listing for effect what each tug represents (“first crush,”
“high school boyfriend/girlfriend,” “a friendship that went too far,”
etc). In the end, they will present the
thoroughly mangled thing to their audience and tell them this is what their
heart will look like on their wedding day when they present it to their spouse,
if they have not followed emotional purity faithfully. The scare-tactic is generally successful. Even where the particular analogy is absent, the
concept is present: where emotional purity is present, there is also a fear of
failing one’s future spouse and ruining one’s future marriage by having
feelings for someone else before marriage.
The reality is that love does not work that way (it is possible to
actually love your future spouse
more
for having had previous attractions) and that redemption is
always possible.
iii.
Fear of
Heartbreak: Another universal idea in emotional purity is the fear of
heartbreak and the emotional pain that accompanies unrequited love or a
romantic relationship that falls through.
Heartbreak is treated like a terrible plague to be avoided at all costs. Such pain is said to leave emotional scars
which, according to some, can never be healed (which is, of course, untrue: the
Bible
promises healing).
Emotional pain and risk are already scary things to young people, but
emotional purity preys on this fear, inflates it, and then tells young people
that strict adherence to emotional purity’s principles is the only way to
escape the pain.
iv.
Fear of
Sexual Sin: Since emotional purity sees itself as an almost seamless
extension of sexual purity, it is no surprise that those who do not follow it
are held to be at a higher risk of falling into sexual sin as well. After all, if you never let yourself even like a member of the opposite sex,
you’re not as likely to fornicate with them, or so the logic goes. Genuine Christians who fear sexual sin and do
not know how to effectively combat it may find themselves drawn to emotional
purity as an easy way out.
v.
Fear of
Dishonoring Christ: Many times, emotional purity proponents will say that
romantic feelings distract from God. In
this, they arguably have the
support of Paul, but they
almost invariably take things further than he did, saying that those who are
distracted by emotional attractions etc have made an idol of the opposite sex
in their heart. While above emotional
purity proponents explained how “giving your heart away” left you with less for
your future spouse, the same analogy can and often is used to describe the
present state of affairs between the “emotionally impure” believer and Christ:
every “piece” of their heart they “give away” is one less piece they can give
to Christ, now and forever (again untrue because romantic love and love for God
are not mutually exclusive and, again, redemption is
always possible).
vi.
Fear of
Being Like the World: Emotional purity almost invariably sets up a false
dichotomy between itself (that is, between whichever incarnation of the
doctrine the proponent him or herself embraces) and “worldly dating.” Emotional purity proponents are generally
people who have taken a look at the darker side of hookup culture (premarital
sex, teen pregnancies, divorce rates, obsession, heartache, guilt) and decided
to avoid it at all costs. Many of the
authors of emotional purity books confess that their pre-marital years were
turbulent, troubled, and left them in lasting misery. These people then approach young singles
(whether their own children or those of others put under their care) and, with
the best of intentions, try to steer them clear of the mistakes of their own
youth. Emotional purity adherents see
their position as the only alternative to a dangerous culture of flippantly
giving away one’s heart and body to be used and abused by members of the
opposite sex.
vii.
Fear of
Man: Many emotional purity cultures are also very legalistic in this area
and in others. While I have heard from
at least one proponent who claims that emotional purity can and has been
applied without legalism, I have never seen or heard of any workable model
where this could actually occur.
Emotional purity doctrine therefore generally goes hand in hand with
strong authority figures (parents, church leaders, Christian college staff) who
can and will enforce its dictates on unwilling members, believing that they are
protecting these members and their entire organization from falling into sin by
doing so. Members, therefore, may find
themselves adhering to emotional purity not out of any personal conviction that
it is true, but out of fear of punishment from the authority figures in their
lives.
2.
Problems
with Emotional Purity
a.
Pure from
What? Purity is an exceptionally simple word when it comes to
definitions. It means simply the absence
of impurity. An impurity is some undesirable thing, a
contaminant. When the term is applied to
Christian living, an impurity is a sin.
Therefore, in order for one to accept that emotional purity is a
legitimate concept, they must also tacitly admit that there are some emotions
which are, by their nature, impure and sinful.
The question is, what emotions and how do we know? The answer, it seems, is something we have to
make up.
i.
Beyond
the Bible: The Bible, as it turns out, says nothing about the possibility
of impure emotions. While Paul has a
chance in 1 Corinthians 7 to condemn the distractions of romantic love, he
takes pains not to and even says
“it is no sin.” In fact, nowhere in the Bible do we see a
single verse or phrase that can be legitimately used to say that romantic
attractions are sinful. Aware of the
importance of Biblical support, emotional purity advocates will stretch a
number of verses in bizarre ways to try to support their doctrine, but these efforts
invariably collapse under careful exegesis.
1.
“Guard
Your Heart” No discussion of Emotional Purity doctrine would be complete
without including this phrase. It is the
catch-phrase for emotional purity, almost synonymous with it. If someone tells you to “guard your heart,”
chances are they’re proscribing some form of emotional purity to you. The reason the phrase is so popular is
because it is 100% Biblical: it appears right there in
Proverbs 4:23,
“Above all else, guard your heart.” At
this point, Emotional Purity advocates stop quoting and would prefer that you
stop reading to instead acknowledge their victory in that we today take “the
heart” to mean romantic feelings and the Bible says “guard your heart” right
there in black and white. But as it
turns out, this is only the first half of the verse, and the context puts it in
an entirely different light.
a.
Proverbs
4:23 in Context: My son, pay
attention to what I say; turn your ear to my words. Do not let them out of your sight, keep them
within your heart; for they are life to those who find them and health to one’s
whole body. Above all else, guard your
heart, for everything you do flows from it.
Keep your mouth free of perversity; keep corrupt talk from your
lips. Let your eyes look straight ahead;
fix your gaze directly before you. Give
careful thought to the paths for your feet and be steadfast in all your
ways. Do not turn to the right or the
left; keep your foot from evil. (Proverbs 4:20-27, NIV)
b.
What it
Means: In context, Solomon is clearly telling his son to store up the
wisdom of his proverbs, the wisdom passed from father to son, and keep his
heart and life away from wickedness.
Several forms of wickedness are specified and romance is not among them. In reality, the only way we can make this
passage apply to romance and support Emotional Purity is to presuppose that
romantic feelings are evil and/or presuppose that “the heart” refers always to
romantic longings (when, in the Bible, “the heart” has much, much broader
applications).
2.
“Do
nothing from partiality” Beyond the ever-famous “guard your heart” passage,
Emotional Purity proof-texts seem to be a diverse crowd with the odds being
slim that any two proponents will share the same proof-texts unless they
learned them from each other. But the
above passage from 1
Timothy 5:21 bears mention because it’s one that people
from the Rock have probably heard, as it was used in a pamphlet titled
Rock Solid Relationships that presented
it among other proof-texts for emotional purity. The idea with this verse is that having an
emotional attachment to a member of the opposite sex causes us to treat this
person different than we would other members of the opposite sex. A boy is more likely to spend time alone with
a girl he’s crushing on than with a girl he isn’t attracted to, or so the logic
goes. This is said to be partiality in
favor of the one we are attracted to and therefore sinful (which, by extension,
makes the feelings that inspire the “partiality” sinful).
a.
1 Timothy
5:21 in Context: Let the elders who
rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in
preaching and teaching. For the
Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and,
“The laborer deserves his wages.” Do not
admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three
witnesses. As for those who persist in
sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in
fear. In the presence of God and of
Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without
prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of
others; keep yourself pure…The sins of some men are conspicuous, going before
them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later. So also good works are conspicuous, and even
those that are not cannot remain hidden. (1 Timothy 5:17-22, 24-25, ESV);
ed: verse 23 is a parenthetical aside addressing Timothy’s stomach problems and
has been omitted for clarity, as parentheticals by their nature are not
necessary for the understanding of the passage in which they are embedded.
b.
What it
Means: In context, the charge to do nothing from partiality or prejudice is
smack dab in the middle of a passage regarding
church conduct toward appointed elders, specifically connected with the
process of appointing them (“laying on of hands”) and disciplining them. For a church that does not even believe that
women can be elders, there is no
possible connection to romance unless we want to say that Paul was addressing
homosexual desire, which I think is patently absurd.
c.
Double-Edged
Sword: However, assuming the passage were
applicable broadly (“do nothing from partiality” certainly seems broad, and we
can all agree with Paul that “prejudice” is bad), could they be applied to support
emotional purity? Only if, at the same
time and to a greater extent, it was allowed to destroy the practice of the
same. Emotional purity does go out of
its way to make sure that all members of the opposite sex are treated
equally—in that they are one and all to be avoided by singles for fear of
causing emotional impurity to rear its inexplicably ugly head. The result is prejudice. It’s okay for a man and a male friend to talk
together alone, but it’s not okay for a female friend to be in the same
situation with the same man because she
is female. It’s like the rule that
says you shouldn’t talk to those kids over there because they’re black: don’t
associate too closely with those Christians over there because they’re male (or
female, take your pick). This is not
always overtly stated as much as it is practiced, but it’s still there. I remember one young woman emailed me saying
she was taking particular steps to break off our friendship rather than resolve
our conflict, and confessed that she would not do these things if I was
female—but supposedly it’s okay to throw rocks at boys because they’re somehow
less human? One can try to argue that
spending more time with this person or that person is prejudice (though one
invariably runs up against the realities of circumstances forcing people together,
people having limited time in which to invest in relationships, and other
things that keep the accusation of prejudice from marking the fact that people
have “best friends” as a sin), but the argument that avoiding the opposite
gender is prejudice is almost impossible to combat—since, really, if that other
person were the same gender as you in the same situation, it would be totally
fine to hang out with them as much as you liked (the only reason you’re
treating them differently is because of their sex: which is, by the way,
discrimination and prejudice under the definition of the law).
3.
“Like a
sister” This is a popular verse, also from 1 Timothy 5 (
verse 2),
which proponents of emotional purity and sexual purity use to teach young
people that they need to keep themselves free from emotional attachments and
physical contact with Christians of the opposite sex because, well, if you did
that with your biological sister it would be just gross. I wonder immediately if these people
have biological sisters. God has blessed me with two biological
sisters with whom I grew up. If I told
you I had no emotional attachments toward them and that my relationship with
them was “purely” dispassionate, I might be struck dead for lying (possibly by
one of my sisters). They are my sisters,
and I love them. I love spending time
with them and I am close to them. I also
share physical affection with them (we’re not talking incest here: we’re
talking hugs and such). While I am not
physically or romantically attracted to them, I do consider them attractive in
that regard (they’re hotter than
your
sisters, anyway ;P). Under the wisdom of
emotional impurity, none of these things would be allowed between me and a
member of the opposite sex (someone would probably die if I got up on stage at
the Rock and
glomped—a type of hug,
for those of you who are uneducated in these things--a girl like I would my
little sister). Thus, when this verse is
used to try to enforce emotional purity, it is doomed from the beginning since
the concept of a distant dispassionate relationship is anathema to family.
ii.
Guilt by
Association: Since the Bible does not directly say anything against
emotional or romantic attachments to make them “impure,” proponents are forced
to look elsewhere. Two easy targets
present themselves, as already introduced in the section about fear.
1.
Sexual
Impurity: The first target is sexual impurity. It is taught that emotional impurity and
sexual impurity are different parts of the same spectrum of sin and that
stepping into the former puts one on a slippery slope to the latter. At first glance, the logic seems to follow:
after all, you wouldn’t be tempted to have sex with someone you aren’t
romantically involved with, would you?
a.
Free Sex;
Love Sold Separately: Well, as it turns out, you would. In fact, this sort of thing happens all the
time in hookup culture. Young people may
involve themselves in one-night-stands or drunken orgies with people they have
no feelings for. If the relationship
lasts, it’s called “friends with benefits,” because, while sexual favors are
exchanged freely, no romantic feelings are involved. Some have even been quoted as getting annoyed
when romantic entanglements spring up to complicate the free sex. In this culture, from which emotional purity
flees, the ideal is sex with “no strings attached”—that is, completely free of
romantic entanglements (I find it incredible that on both extremes of this
debate people are telling us that romantic love is bad—wasn’t it something that
God-fellow invented way back in Genesis and mentioned as a picture of His own
love countless times throughout that one book?
You think maybe Satan doesn’t like it?
I do: I think both sides are demonic).
b.
Sexual
Abuse: There are, of course, further extremes. The rapist does not attack out of romantic adoration
but sexual lust. Sexual harassment is
also generally free from emotional attachment (if it weren’t, the abuser would
probably respect the victim’s wishes).
Then, there’s prostitution and pornography, both of which involve sexual
impurity completely divorced from romantic entrapments. What is truly disturbing is that, in some
cases, studies have found that environments rife with emotional purity teaching
actually fostered sexual abuse, addiction, and pornography.
i.
Effect of
the Elephant in the Room: When you think about the psychological
implications of emotional purity, the fact that hidden sexual abuse and
addiction follows it like a shadow is actually not very surprising. If you tell a man, “Don’t think about a pink
elephant,” he will immediately think of a pink elephant because trying to
banish an object focuses it in the forefront of the mind. Thus, cultures (like the Rock) that aim to
suppress romantic feelings are often rife with romantic tension, emotional
drama, and are places where relationships are an almost constant topic among
the membership (such topics and tensions were comparatively rare and fleeting
among the Navs, a college ministry that does not embrace emotional
purity). Throw in the teaching that
romantic entanglements should suppressed because because otherwise you will
think about sex and now guess what’s on everybody’s mind. It’s like telling a man, “Don’t think of a
pink elephant, because then you will think about a blue kangaroo.” I know what you’re thinking right now (blue
kangaroo). As an example, while sexual
purity was a struggle men (and presumably women) shared privately at the Navs,
I was never accused of sexual impurity anywhere but the Rock—and the thing that
brought on the accusation wasn’t even sexual in nature!
ii.
Life on
the Slippery Slope: In theory, when
you tell someone that if they do X, it is just as bad as doing Y and they are
at risk of doing Y also, it should keep them as far away from X as
possible. The problem comes, when, in
practice, X is something that is not really avoidable. Neither gender has control over who they feel
attracted to, or when, or how strongly, or how long. Emotional purity comes along and says that to
feel emotionally attracted to someone is like lusting for them, which is, of course,
as bad as actually committing adultery with this person. So, what are the logical implications to an
unfortunate who develops a crush on a member of the opposite sex? Well, he’s already crossed the line and
soiled himself. What difference does it make
if he goes a little further and actually lusts for this girl: doesn’t emotional
purity say they’re the same? And if he
does that, well, then, he might as well let things go all the way. The logic isn’t valid (the entire “slippery
slope” argument from which it derives is classed as a logical fallacy), but it
does happen. Even if it’s not with the
person with which the unfortunate has a crush, they may still slide into a
downward spiral. Emotional purity says
that if you have a romantic attachment, you’ve cheapened and dirtied
yourself. Well, if you’ve fallen and
found you can’t get up, you might as well have a good roll in the mud while
you’re down. So goes the logic of many
who, depressed by their inability to hold up under the legalistic demands of
emotional purity, decide to live as the
“bad girl” or “bad boy” they have been branded as (this is something all legalistic
cultures share in common: they are breeding grounds for the very “denigrates”
they shun).
2.
Heartache:
The second target for guilt-by-association is heartache. Nobody likes having their heart broken, so
it’s a very easy target. It’s also a
very true target. C.S. Lewis rightly
observed that, “To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung
and possibly broken. If you want to make
sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal.” Pain is a thread that is woven through every
part of the story God is telling: even He Himself is not untouched! But should we avoid heartache? Certainly, it is unpleasant, but there is
nothing in the Bible to say it is a sin or a consequence of sin. In fact, the only way to avoid it is to stop
loving entirely: to break the first and second commandments upon which (according
to Christ) everything hangs. C.S. Lewis
goes on to say that to avoid vulnerability to heartache we must isolate our
heart and “wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all
entanglements. Lock it up safe in the
casket or coffin of your selfishness.
But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will
change. It will not be broken; it will
become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable.
To love at all is to be vulnerable.”
In this way, heartache is a little like waste heat in thermodynamics:
nobody wants it, everybody’s got it, the only way to get rid of it is to stop
playing the game…and you cannot stop
playing the game. In thermodynamics,
it’s a matter of impossibility; in love it’s a matter of monstrosity—stop
loving and you commit a selfish evil act more twisted and demonic than any
romantic entanglement or heartbreak could ever be (and scripture has a lot to say about the wickedness of
people who do not love).
iii.
The
Commandments of Men: In the end, the quest for a Biblical basis for calling
romantic feelings impure (and thus the entire logical foundation of emotional
purity doctrine) is fruitless. This is
perhaps why most advocates don’t spend much time on it, instead doing a brief
gloss of one or two proofs and diving right into scare tactics and instructions
on how to avoid emotional impurity.
Comparatively little (or even no) ink is spilled on saying what is
actually “impure” about these emotions or even which emotions are impure to
start with. This essentially leaves an
open field for whatever authority figures happen to be on the scene. If they say that knowing enough about a guy
to know his schedule is emotional impure (an actual scenario from one of my
friends: the guy would be her husband in less than a year), then no one can
really dispute it with them. This sets
up a system where groups are “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”
often commandments that explicitly violate commandments of God. The most obvious examples are the commands
for love and unity between all believers (brothers and sisters in Christ
inclusive), which are quite simply incompatible with a lot of the measures
taken under emotional purity (some versions of it, as mentioned above, go so
far as to say that it is impossible to have any amicable interactions with a
member of the opposite sex or any love for them at all without falling into the
sin of emotional impurity). But there
are other ones as well. In the Rock,
there was one occasion when a leader forbade me from sharing the gospel with a
non-Christian friend because the friend was female and it would be emotionally
impure. As above, there is also the very strict command to do nothing from
prejudice or partiality, which—if we take it to have broader applications than
the process of appointing and disciplining elders—is in direct opposition to a
system of thought that tells us to treat 50% of our fellow Christians
differently and/or disassociate with them because their sexual organs aren’t in
the same place as ours.
b.
Christ-like
Love: You’re Doin’ it Wrong: As discussed above, emotional purity sets
itself at odds with love. It does so
explicitly and unabashedly in the case of romantic love (supposedly it is only
opposed to “unauthorized” romantic love—but what love is authorized and what
isn’t is a murky game that very often comes down to power-play and winning the
favoritism of the authority figures).
Since Scripture nowhere condemns romantic love and everywhere sets it up
as an example of God’s love for us, this is crossing a line. When emotionally purity puts constraints on
the love between brothers and sisters in Christ out of fear that these
relationships will turn into “unauthorized” and “impure” romantic
entanglements, it crosses another line.
When it obliterates those relationships, it crosses all the lines. This becomes particularly obvious when one
considers that the standard for love between Christians is the love that Christ
had for us: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved
you” (
John 15:12). One of the
most audacious things about Christ’s love was that it crossed the gender line,
and the most despicable thing emotional purity can do is push it back to the
other side. Jesus Christ came in the
flesh: this is a fact the denial of which constitutes demonic influence (
1 John4:1-3). While in the flesh, Jesus
was tempted in every way just as we are, yet was without sin (
Hebrews 4:15)—deviation from which doctrine constitutes heresy. Therefore, any teaching that would condemn a
man (or woman) for doing the things Jesus did on this earth with the opposite
sex is both heretical and demonic. There
can be no flexibility, no two-ways, about this!
An analysis of one of many possible example scenarios follows.
i.
One-on-One
at the Well: John 4 records a story that would have been baffling to
the religious elite of Jesus’ day, and is sadly equally baffling to many in the
church today. Jesus and his disciples
are traveling through Samaria, the region of the hated-apostate-halfbreeds, and
while the disciples go into town to buy food, Jesus sits down on the edge of a
well. A woman comes out to the well, to
draw water for herself, and Jesus strikes up a conversation. Being Jesus, He quickly turns the
conversation to the gospel, and during the course of the conversation two facts
emerge. The first is that this woman is
a “loose woman.” She has had five husbands
and is currently sleeping with a prospect for number six. The second fact is that Jesus is perfectly
aware of her sexually impure life—and He chooses to talk to her anyway! Jesus talked one-on-one and shared the gospel
with a woman who was known (to Him at least) to be sexually and (if we accept
emotional purity) emotionally impure—and He did so not only without sin, but
actually as an act of obedience to the Father (
John 4:34).
ii.
Analysis
of the Well: Honestly, the test of the Samaritan woman is one I can think
of very few incarnations of emotional purity passing. Only the mildest versions need even
apply. Most teach that one-on-one
interaction with a member of the opposite sex is bound to cause emotional
impurity and many account it as romantic pursuit (and unauthorized romantic
pursuit—that is, pursuit of someone the authority figures don’t think you
should marry—is a sin). By this logic,
Jesus was sinning just by conversing with a woman alone, let alone bringing up
the intimate topics of the gospel and her romantic relationships. When we throw in the fact that this woman was
known to play fast and loose with her sexual morals, Jesus is definitely in
trouble. This is certainly someone an
emotional purity culture would tell every male to avoid and to never, ever
speak to one-on-one. But Jesus did, and
if we condemn Him for it, it is us and not Him who are in sin.
c.
Fear, not
Faith: The Bible tells us that “whatever does not proceed from faith is
sin” (
Romans 14:23) and further that “there is no fear in love, but
perfect love casts out fear. For fear
has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love” (
1John 4:18). But, as discussed in
the definition, emotional purity creates, operates in, and responds with a
culture of fear. Fear is the antithesis
of faith (so long as we are not talking the “fear of God”). Emotional purity’s proponents have been quick
to proclaim that theirs is a method of faith in that it relies on God and waits
for him, but a number of things belie this position, revealing that the true
foundation of the doctrine is fear, not faith.
i.
Reaction,
not Action: As mentioned in the section about “fear of being like the
world,” emotional purity sets up a false dichotomy between itself and the
hookup culture with no “middle road” between them (this is a logical fallacy,
by the way). Then, rather than modeling
itself on what the Bible says dating should be (because, despite all the
attempts of emotional purity books to prove otherwise, it is silent on the
topic), emotional purity takes a bundle of positions from hookup culture,
reverses them, and turns it into a doctrine.
Hookup culture says that there is no difference at all between male and
female, so emotional purity overemphasizes every difference to the point where
they seem like different species. Hookup
culture makes light of going out with people you never get married to, so
emotional purity makes much of it.
Hookup culture believes in pursuing what you want now, so emotional
purity believes in waiting. Hookup
culture tells you to follow your heart, so emotional purity tells you to crush
it. Hookup culture flaunts authority, so
emotional purity enforces it. The most
obvious case is the most trivial: hookup-culture calls it “dating” so emotional
purity avoids the “d-word” at all costs.
This is not action taken based on truth, but simple reaction based on the
lies of hookup culture. When we go about
blindly doing the opposite of whatever we see “the world” doing, we are as much
their puppet as if we followed them directly—since in neither case are we
giving any heed to direction from God.
ii.
Take Me
to Your Leader: The whole argument of emotional purity being the road of
faith hinges on the idea of “waiting for God to bring along ‘the One.’” But really, is the idea of “the One” even
Biblical? Much ink has been spilled here
by other authors, but the long and short of it is that, while it is Biblical to
say that God has a plan for your life, there is no mention in the Bible of Him
hand-picking our future spouses. It’s
possible He does, but the Bible doesn’t say it.
Mostly, the idea of “the One” comes from the romance genre. But assuming, for the moment, that God does,
indeed, pick out “soul-mates” in His divine plan, how do we know, in emotional
purity, when “the One” has come along?
Practically speaking in every emotional purity culture I’ve ever heard
of, the answer comes down to “when the resident authority figures say so.” This may mean parents approving of or
arranging a match. This may mean leaders no older than the couples themselves
evaluating and approving of each individual’s character and fitness for a
relationship. In either case, God need
not be involved because man has this one covered. Seriously, in a lot of the stories out there
about emotional purity all the important decisions were made by authority
figures based purely on their personal judgment. This may constitute an act of faith on the
part of couples, but it certainly isn’t in God.
One may ask why God doesn’t have a freer hand in all this or why
everything has to be rubber-stamped by these authority figures, and the reason
comes down to fear. With the authority
figures firmly at the helm, a trusted human face is in control (or at least
seems to be—since humans really can’t even control much of anything). Without that face, fear and uncertainty
threaten, so the authority figure remains on the throne.
iii.
God Walks
into a College Ministry: A few years ago, I had the dubious distinction of
being there to witness first hand where a particular emotional purity culture
put its faith and who was really leading the relationships. A young man and a young woman both professed
to have had powerful spiritual experiences wherein they believed God told them
that a romantic relationship between them was His will. The young man’s parents at least approved,
though I do not know if the young woman’s parents were ever consulted when the
question was at issue. Whether they were
or weren’t turns out to be irrelevant, because in this culture the primary
authority figure was not parents (former members have told me leaders
encouraged them to defy their Christian parents) but church and college
ministry leadership, dominated by single or married men and women in their
early-to-mid twenties who had no formal training or selection process and
little oversight in the decisions they made (one leader was effectively able to
exercise “church discipline” without the pastorate of the church ever being
aware of it). These leaders were against
the match from square one. They feared
it would bring both members into emotional impurity and harm, and they were
totally unfazed by the prospect that they were, in the eyes of these two
members, giving direction that was in direct opposition to the revealed will of
God. They produced various arguments for
why these young people needed to listen to their leaders instead of whatever
they believed God was telling them, with the end result of bringing emotional
purity doctrine to bear on all interactions between the pair, eventually
demolishing a friendship from which both had derived spiritual encouragement
previously. To me, the message was
clear: God is not welcome here.
d.
After Purity:
In addition to the above problems, emotional purity has a number of detrimental
effects, some of which apply specifically to people who have engaged in
romantic feelings, whether with or without the approval of their resident
authority figures.
i.
Needless
Guilt: The biggest effect, is, of course, guilt. This is only logical. After all, emotional purity has gone out and
made up a bunch of sins we can commit, and if we’ve embraced the doctrine and
then gone and done the things it condemns, we naturally feel guilty about it
(and because those things aren’t actually sinful in the first place, our guilt
is needless by definition). This occurs
even if the particular romantic entanglement one “commits” is one approved by
the necessary emotional-purity-backed authority figures. By this point, fear of emotional
entanglements is a programmed knee-jerk reaction and it simply cannot be turned
off just because a leader said you could be a couple now. The situation is exacerbated when you throw
in the fact that many or all couples who eventually get leadership approval (at
least in the emotional purity culture I most closely observed: again, your
mileage may vary) spend a significant amount of time feeling attracted to one
another without having that attraction “legitimized” by the necessary
leaders—or worse, having those leaders actively condemn the attraction. After months or years of taking and
internalizing this treatment, it is impossible to simply roll over and start
loving someone without feeling guilty about it.
This is pointless suffering.
ii.
Run
Before You Can Walk: Another effect several of my friends who are currently
in relationships have attested to (together with numerous strangers on the
internet) is that following emotional purity leaves one totally unprepared to
handle a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, especially a romantic
one. People who have grown up in an extreme
emotional purity environment and are suddenly thrust into a romantic
relationship are the relational equivalent of a kid who has spent his whole
life in a wheelchair being suddenly asked to run a marathon. They have no clue how to relate to a member
of the opposite sex on even the most fundamental level of both of them being
human beings, let alone how to build a lifelong, deep, committed relationship
with one. All they really have is two
fists full of dreams and expectations that are completely untested by
reality. They are in for disappointment. They are in for frustration. They are in for confusion and pain, and they
are a practically guaranteed client for the next marriage step-by-step book or
equivalent (they navigated their single years by letting other people tell them
what to do, what do you think they’ll do when marriage gets confusing?). They are not hopeless, thank God. If they are aware of the weaknesses emotional
purity has left them, they can combat them.
Even if they aren’t, if they remain in the emotional purity culture that
put them together that culture is likely to continue to support and direct them
(the authority figures that directed their single years will continue to
preside over their married lives). Since
all of these cultures have very strong prohibitions against divorce, they are
unlikely to become divorced or even (if not yet married) break up (keeping in
mind that, in order for them to have come together in the first place,
leadership had to have approved them for each other as “the person God wants
you to marry” or “the One”—you do not dump “the One”). Since they further promote (generally)
Biblical models of marriage itself, they may even build healthy, God-honoring
marriages, but when this occurs, it is not much to the credit of the emotional
purity that left them so otherwise ill-prepared.
3.
A More
Excellent Way? When emotional purity arguments are made, they are made in
opposition to a hookup culture that does not honor God. When it comes between the two of them,
emotional purity seems the clear winner.
Thus, even seeing the systems flaws, one might cling to emotional purity
as the only option that honors God out of fear (there’s that word again) of
falling into the hookup culture of casual premarital sex. But the reality is that there are not just
two ways to handle romantic relationships and platonic friendships. A God-honoring way needs to be sought between
the two, but anyone coming to this part looking for a six-simple-steps solution
is bound for disappointment. Man leads
through six-simple-steps, but God is more creative and more difficult to
anticipate (and more wonderful for it).
While reading this, do keep in mind that the author is a single young
man who has never been romantically involved: take it with a grain of salt.
a.
Love one
another: This is one of the highest commands of the Bible, as well as one
of the most frequently repeated (the highest, of course, is “Love God,” but if
you’re going for a God-honoring way to relate to the opposite sex, I’m going to
assume that’s already a priority for you).
It is also a listed criterion for knowing and loving God (
1 John 4:20-21). However we behave ourselves
toward friends or romantic interests of the opposite sex, we must be sure it is
out of love.
b.
Flee
Sexual Immorality: The Bible is very, very clear that sex is something that
belongs in the marriage bed (well…technically it isn’t too particular about
where married couples do it, just
that
they do it and that other people don’t).
Sexual immorality is also a sin that can be committed in the heart,
through lust. We need to turn away from
things that tempt us to sexual immorality and turn to God. In doing so, it is important that we not make
the mistake many have made in making sexual purity legalistic. Sex is not evil: sex is good. Our sexual desires, feelings,
and organs are all parts of us made by a
God Who is not prone to massive design flaws, Who loves us very much and wants
to be Lord over all of our lives, ruling over and being glorified in every
aspect of our being. For some, this may
mean becoming eunuchs (
Matthew 19:11-12) either practically or
actually. Some are going to be called to
celibacy, some to marriage. We should
not assume that either is better than the other or that we are called to one
over the other. Particularly, we should
not think that submitting our sexuality to God involves obliterating it. He made it, He paid for it, He loves it, and
He gets to say what’s done with it: this is the opposite of sexual immorality,
which says that my sexuality is something that
I rule over, or that rules over me, for my own satisfaction and not
God’s glory.
c.
Do not be
Unequally Yoked: When it comes to finding an actual spouse (and we should
be careful this isn’t our sole aim in interacting with the opposite sex: that’s
not loving), we need to remember that marriage is a spiritual union. It shouldn’t be, as a general rule, entered
into by people with differing beliefs.
Christ should be the most important person in any Christian’s life, and
if a Christian is married to a non-Christian, then their spouse cannot
understand the part of their life that is most important to them and that
shapes all others—and that is a sad situation indeed.
d.
Follow
God: God needs to be our leader. He
is the only one who knows His plan for our lives, and we need to follow
Him. This may not look the same for
every person—in fact, it will not. For
some people, God may lead them to follow leaders and walk in emotional purity
(Jesus did tell the crowds to do as the Pharisees told them to do in
Matthew23:2-3). For some, He may lead
through circumstances, for some through the sound council of their elders (note
that
just council is not enough:
there is such a thing as foolish council and young people are particularly
prone to giving it—as the story of
Rehoboam proves well), for some
through feelings, for some through various forms of direct revelation. For most, it will probably be a mix of these
things, and all of them are important in considering a direction. The critical thing is that we are following
God, not ourselves, not others, not our fears, but God. This will not lead to any one-size-fits-all
solution, but we do not serve a one-size-fits-all God. Additionally, it will not lead to a pain-free
dating, friendship, or marriage experience.
“To love at all is to be vulnerable,” and God calls us to be terribly
vulnerable to Him and to each other. If
we follow Him, there are two things of which we may be assured: we will be
hurt, and it will be worth it in the end.
