Setting the Record Straight

The following post regards an interpersonal conflict between me and a certain young woman.  I wouldn’t write about it here, but it seems that a number of people have been led to believe or say things about my conduct and intentions in this conflict that simply are not true.  While these allegations were made privately, the fact that they were made to multiple people at multiple times by multiple people makes them public for all practical purposes.  I therefore thought it appropriate that I publically set the record straight.

Nevertheless, the internet is a very public place, so I won’t be getting into details or naming names.  If you’ve heard about this conflict, you already know who the players are.  If you don’t, you don’t need to, and probably don’t need to be reading this post anyway.

Originally, when I started this post, it got long and complicated pretty fast, so I’m going to try something new and do it in outline form, which hopefully will make it easier to follow and mercifully brief.

The Allegations:

1.       Pursuing a romantic relationship against her wishes.

a.       Details: This is the most frequent of the allegations, coming up at every turn from the young woman and her supporters for three years running.  It is used to justify a lot of the measures taken against me.

b.      Background: About three and a half years ago, I was romantically interested in this young woman and asked her out twice, the second time coming only after she herself suggested we seriously consider a romantic relationship.  Both times she refused.  She has since made it abundantly clear that she does not desire a romantic relationship with me ever.  For the last three years, I attempted to pursue a purely platonic relationship, but her inability to believe this was my intention lead to constant miscommunications, fights, and—six months ago—the final dissolution of our friendship.  Now, the fighting has spread into mutual friendships, which she sees as also being used to pursue her romantically and she has accordingly taken steps to remove me from these relationships.

c.       Defense:

                                                              i.      Lack of pursuit: I have not spoken to, or attempted to speak to, or approached the young woman in six months.  Before that time I had attempted no romantic advance on her in two and a half years.

                                                            ii.      Denial of pursuit: I have publically and privately, verbally and in writing, explicitly and implicitly, repeatedly for years denied that I am pursuing a romantic relationship with this young woman or that it is my intent to do so.

                                                          iii.      Lack of intent: I have no intention of being in a relationship with this young woman.  For me to even be able to contemplate such a relationship as a future possibility would require massive changes in our personalities, beliefs, and priorities that I cannot honestly see as plausible given the current circumstances.

2.       Arguments to prove, despite the above evidence, that I am pursuing a romantic relationship with this young woman.

a.       I had a spiritual experience that compels me to pursue her romantically/makes romantic pursuit inevitable

                                                              i.      Background: Three and a half years ago, I had a spiritual experience where I believe God revealed that this young woman and I had a future together.  Some six months later, while our relationship was still young and we hadn’t completely ruled out the possibility of a romantic relationship, I foolishly shared this experience with this young woman.  As a reward, it seems I have earned her eternal distrust.  While I still struggle to make sense of the experience, I continue to believe that it was real and was from God.

                                                            ii.      Details: Because I continue to believe in the experience, the accusation is that it is constantly in the back of my mind directing my actions toward a particular end: a romantic relationship with this young woman.

                                                          iii.      Defense:

1.       Making God’s will happen: The experience did not come with instructions to pursue this young woman.  Therefore, pursuing a romantic relationship with her would not, in my understanding (which is the understanding most likely to direct my actions, after all) constitute obedience to God, but a human effort to take His will into our own hands.  It would not be an act of faith, like Abram following God to Canaan, but of doubt, like the conception of Ishmael.  I do not want to be ruled by doubt, but faith: therefore I am not attempting and have not attempted to take this romantic relationship into my own hands and make it happen.

2.       Just because God says it doesn’t mean we want it: Just because I had and believe this experience does not mean that my own will, feelings, and judgment are somehow magically overridden.  I have very, very serious reservations about this young woman as a fellow Christian and a friend, to say nothing of a romantic partner.  I cannot see myself in a relationship with her.  I cannot feel romantic love for her.  My spiritual experience does not change or negate any of these things.

3.       Counter-example: The young woman’s own experience: About eight or nine months after my spiritual experience, the young woman reportedly (by her own confession to me and others) had a spiritual experience of her own wherein, during prayer, she believed that God emphatically told her a romantic relationship with me was His will for her.  While it’s arguable that she did briefly try to make His will happen by raising the question of a romantic relationship before she was prepared to actually enter one, she is doing so no longer (unless, of course, she is seeing a lack of romantic relationship as His will, in which case, she is undoubtibly trying to make that happen by every available means).  It is also of note that this experience did not override her feelings or judgment, and—while it may have been in the back of her mind—it did not launch her into a romantic pursuit of me.  If her spiritual experience does not/did not compel her to seek a romantic relationship with me, why should mine be any different?

b.      Attraction compels me to pursue the young woman romantically

                                                              i.      Defense:

1.       Self Control: This allegation is highly offensive to me.  It assumes, basically, that I cannot control myself and must romantically pursue anyone I find attractive.  Yes, I find the young woman attractive.  No, I am not interested in a relationship—romantic or otherwise—with her.  I am a man, not an animal.  I am not ruled by feelings.

2.       Counter-Example: I have a female friend of nine years with whom I am still fairly close today.  At one time during late high school and freshman year of college, I was attracted to her to the point of being infatuated with her.  She wasn’t interested, though, and so we decided to be just friends.  My feelings of attraction persisted for several years after this decision, but I never betrayed my friendship.  I never tried to make it a romantic relationship.  I never pursued the girl romantically.  Instead, I was the best platonic friend to this girl that I could be.  Toward the end, she was comfortable enough in the platonic relationship that she would tell me about her crushes and ask me for boy advice, and I gave her good advice even though I was still attracted to her at the time!  If I can be that mature in high school, surely I am capable of basic self-control today.

c.       I have crossed boundaries with this young woman, constituting prima facie romantic pursuit

                                                              i.      Nature of the boundaries:

1.       Not Biblical, legal, or cultural: The boundaries are not described in the Bible, constituted by law, or mandated by the culture…nor have I done anything in the past two and a half years which would be considered to constitute romantic pursuit in the eyes of any of the above.

2.       Not physical: I have not been in physically intimate or abusive contact with the young woman at any time.  I do not even think I have physically touched her at all.  This should all go without saying, but I will state it anyway, because the gravity with which the young woman and her supporters make their allegations (especially this one) and the actions they propose would almost lead one to believe this is a sexual abuse situation when nothing could be further from the truth.

3.       Not romantic: These boundaries did not relate to anything romantic.  The most intimate thing banned: sharing prayer requests—something I have never done with anyone out of romantic interest or intent.  While the young woman claims that all of these things now constitute romantic pursuit to her, she has admitted with regard to several (including the above example) that she had no previous feelings about them.

4.       Exclusive to this relationship:  These boundaries have all always been private and applied only to the interactions between myself and this young woman, never to any other relationship, increasingly differentiating this relationship from all others over time.  That is to say, these boundaries were never designed to protect her heart so much as they were designed to direct, control, and harm our friendship.  Otherwise, they would have doubtlessly found wider application (her heart is/was not exclusive to our friendship).

5.       Not Consensual: These boundaries were set up unilaterally by the young woman.  Very rarely was there any opportunity given for discussion when a new boundary was proposed by the young woman.  In most cases, when I was informed of the boundary, the young woman held it to be in effect immediately and not negotiable, regardless of how it might affect me or the relationship.  In some cases (as with the most recent “boundary crossing”) I was only informed of the boundary after I had crossed it.  Boundaries could be set or removed only by the young woman and she exercised this power frequently and with little or no regard for the effects on myself or the relationship.  While healthy boundaries to protect oneself may be assertive, this is extreme.  Add to this the fact that, as above, the boundaries were more about control of the relationship than anything else, and the situation becomes more twisted.  In healthy relationships, both parties have input into the direction and course of the relationship and are willing to discuss, negotiate, and inform one another of their convictions, but here one party used barriers to seize exclusive control.

6.       Not reasonable: Many of these boundaries are absurd, such as one which was put in place saying that we could still be friends but could not communicate by email (when, at that time and for the foreseeable future, email was our only means of communication)—effectively saying that we could keep our friendship only if we killed it—which is a contradiction in terms.  Other bizarre boundaries included not addressing her directly in any group conversation (upon her joining the group, I could not say, “Hey, [name], how was your day?” I could only ask about her day if I asked, “So everybody, how was your day?” as a general question), not emailing her directly (email would only be accepted if it was CCed to a member of church leadership), and not attending group activities with her and our mutual friends (group size: 15-20 at least) or hanging out with said friends outside of activities where she is present (this last may not be from her, but one of her advocates has repeated it several times).  While all were raised under the name of preventing romantic pursuit, none of them have the slightest thing to do with it.

7.       Not healthy: These boundaries have not tended to nurture a safe and healthy relationship, but have instead tended to destroy, polarize, and consume the relationship (and now other relationships).  In specific, some of them have been used in particularly unhealthy ways…

a.       …as Avoidance: Boundaries have frequently been erected solely as a means to avoid dealing with a conflict or miscommunication in a constructive and healthy manner.  A general pattern emerged in which a problem would arise due to a miscommunication or misunderstanding and immediately the young woman would put a boundary in place blocking all the easiest means of communication, making the conflict impossible to resolve until a round-about way was found to communicate and clear up the misunderstanding, after which it often happened that the boundaries would be removed.  Their purpose, therefore, was not to protect her from feeling pursued at all but to allow her to avoid dealing with the conflict.  Their effect was to perpetuate and enflame the conflict while straining, damaging, and eventually demolishing the friendship (avoidance always does this: it is pretty much never a healthy way to deal with conflict).

b.      …as Parroting: Many boundaries were erected immediately after the young woman talked with one figure or another in the leadership of the church we both attended (we are not talking pastors, but Bible study leaders and youth pastors with no formal training or selection process and, at most, a few years age difference from us).  This church has struggled with authoritarian leaders to this day and many of its members and leaders (including this young woman) tend to overemphasize the importance and role of church leaders.  Its leadership style has been referred to by critics as “cult-like,” and sadly with accuracy in at least some respects.  It is therefore concerning that the young woman has chosen to adopt a number of barriers with little or no forethought based solely on leadership input rather than any feelings or decisions of her own.  This becomes especially unhealthy when one adds in the fact that the leadership has had a vested interest in the conflict resolving in a certain way (they have had and admitted problems with being too controlling of romantic and non-romantic relationships among their members) and that at least one leader (from whom came several of the young woman’s barriers) lost his position and was rebuked by the church’s pastor for taking sides in and perpetuating our conflict.

                                                            ii.      Crossing Boundaries, Reasons: The above described boundaries were crossed by me, but, given their true nature, I do not think any argument that this constitutes prima facie romantic pursuit can be seriously entertained.  When one additionally considers the reasons why the barriers were crossed, the argument becomes indefensible.

1.       Out of Ignorance: Due to the impetuous and unilateral way in which the young woman erected and changed barriers, on more than one occasion (including my most recent “infraction”: crossing a boundary forbidding me to come to a large gathering of mutual friends and others, which I was aware of only as something the leaders thought best in an information vacuum, not something the young woman had formalized as a personal boundary) I was held guilty of crossing a boundary when I was unaware of its existence.

2.       Out of protest: It happened occasionally (but not often), that I would flirt with or deliberately cross a boundary just to protest its unfairness.  This did not happen very often at all, probably only a handful of times, and the boundaries were invariably minor and completely unrelated to romantic pursuit.

3.       Out of need: Most frequently, I crossed boundaries because I was of the opinion that it was vital for her or the friendship that I do so and did not see another way of accomplishing what needed to be done.  For example, three months ago I moved back to the same city where she lives, a move I had been openly planning for over two years for reasons unrelated to her presence (convenience of travel, work, and housing availability, proximity to other friends, familiar setting, etc).  However, I and several mutual friends believed firmly that the young woman, if surprised by my move, would immediately assume that I was there to pursue her romantically and take some kind of drastic action.  Therefore, although the last-established “boundary” blocked all possible direct or indirect communication between us, I defied it and sent her an email informing her of my immanent move and its true reasons, assuring her it had nothing to do with me.  As a consequence, it is my opinion and that of mutual friends that a great deal of needless drama and stress on the young woman’s part was avoided.

                                                          iii.      Accusations relating to crossing boundaries:

1.       I have broken my promises to the young woman

a.       My broken promises: I take my word very seriously, but not so seriously I will willingly stand by and see someone get hurt so that I can keep my promise.  This is because I love my friends more than I love my pride or reputation.  If I did promise to respect a boundary and later crossed it, it was invariably a case of crossing “out of need” as above.  However, in the majority of cases, I never promised to respect a boundary or gave any kind of consent to it at all.

b.      Her broken promises: There were several occasions where the young woman made promises to me to value, maintain, or uphold our friendship, only to break them at the first sign of conflict for purely selfish reasons of either avoiding dealing with a problem or protecting herself against a feared (but never real) threat.

c.       Comparison: While two wrongs don’t make a right, it is informative to compare how and when each of us was willing to renege our word.  Such comparison justly raises the question of why I am confronted with “consequences” for my “broken promises” while she is not.

2.       I have broken the young woman’s trust

a.       See Above: The situation with broken trust, is, at first glance, so similar to that of broken promises that the answers can be the same.

b.      Trust? On the other hand, once one moves past the already-covered ground of promises, it becomes hard to see where trust could have been broken or betrayed in the friendship.  In many cases, the young woman did not put trust in me at all, substituting barriers instead.  I do not see how it is possible to violate a trust the other party will not extend in the first place.

Alternative Explanation: I conclude, based on the above, that it is not plausible or reasonable to see me as pursuing this young woman romantically.  But the accusations had to have come from somewhere.  Below is a plausible explanation of their origins and why some parties, including the young woman, may feel very strongly that they are true even when all the evidence is to the contrary.  Namely that emotional-purity  legalism can account for the observed fears of the young woman and her reactions.

1.       Emotional purity is known to cause people to perceive romantic pursuit in unreasonable places and stunt or destroy platonic relationships

a.       Joshua Harris: Joshua Harris is popularly known as the father of the emotional purity movement and is, at the least, one of the most well-known figures in the movement, popularizing it in his bestselling book I Kissed Dating Goodbye.  Nevertheless, he has preached a sermon titled “Courtship Shmourtship” which warns of some of the dangers of emotional purity when it is taken too far.  Among these is a tendency (which he specifically addresses in women) to see every action of a member of the opposite sex as a romantic advance regardless of what the action is or whether it is intended as such.  He also commented on the dearth of platonic relationships in his church due to legalism in emotional purity.

b.      Logical Implications when Emotional Purity and Legalism meet: Emotional purity states, in a nutshell, that one’s emotions and romantic feelings before marriage should be as closely guarded as one’s sexual purity.  It directly relates the two and relies upon many parallels between them.  While the validity of such a comparison is beyond the scope of this post, it should at least be clear that when emotional purity is approached legalistically, it will result in the same sorts of things that occur where sexual purity is approached legalistically.  Where sexual purity is approached legalistically, Christian cultures down through the ages have often branded non-promiscuous behaviors as sinful and sexual (ex: Baptists and dancing, extremely modest forms of dress being rigorously enforced).  In extreme cases, it becomes clear that there is no actual link between the “sin” and sexual purity and that instead accusations revolve around power, control, and the need to assuage one’s own conscience by appearing virtuous (such as the case where a man accused a woman of “sitting seductively” and “causing” him to “stumble into lust” when in fact she was very modestly dressed and sitting normally…and he was later discovered to be a sexually abusive man trying to blame his lust on others; of course, accusations have also be leveled as a part of power-play between girls themselves or girls and leaders, in order to control the other party, shame them, or simply make oneself look better).  Because the same treatment is given in emotional purity to romantic advances as sexual advances, the result when legalism is applied to the system will logically be the same.  It should go without saying that this does not create an environment conducive to platonic relationships.

c.       The Rock vs the Navs: While the Rock (the campus ministry of the church we both attended) embraced emotional purity by the private council of all its leaders and the general consensus of its culture and was—by many accounts—legalistic at times, the Navs, an unaffiliated campus ministry, did not.  In the Rock, few platonic relationships formed and none reached very great depth.  Stories of forbidden (by leaders) or unwanted romantic pursuit were common and usually revolved around things which would not ordinarily be seen as romantic.  In the Navs, a great many platonic relationships flourished and many had both depth and strength.  I have never heard a story of unwanted or forbidden (by leaders) romantic pursuit taking place in the Navs in all my years there as a member and a leader.  It is also worth mentioning that whenever romantic pursuit was mentioned, it was overtly romantic actions and certainly romantic intentions (asking out on dates, giving flowers, hugs, etc).  Again, one of the chief differences between these environments was the grip of emotional purity and legalism on one and not on the other.

2.       Emotional purity legalism is known to be a problem in the church and college ministry of which we were a part

a.       Confessed by leadership: during my early discussions with various leaders, emotional purity concepts came up and were treated in a legalistic fashion.  Confronting church leadership about my experiences later, there was a general consensus that, while a legalistic approach of emotional purity was not taught, it was nonetheless prevalent in the church’s culture.

b.      Confessed by members: a number of current and former members of the church and college ministry have told me about experiences and struggles they had with legalistic emotional purity in the group, with pressure coming either from other members or from leaders.  It is a common and almost universal story (many people have had problems with the group, and the odds are that if they have had a problem at least part of it has been in this area).

c.       Experienced myself: Outside of my interactions with the young woman, I have had a number of other experiences where the legalistic application of emotional purity led to conflict within the college ministry.

3.       The young woman and the leaders who guide her are known adherents to legalistic emotional purity.

a.       Leaders addressed me from emotional purity: Whenever I had a conversation with leaders about my situation with this girl, they addressed me from an emotional-purity standpoint and couched their answers in the language of emotional purity (“guard your heart,” “guard her heart,” “don’t cause her to stumble [into romantic feelings—which are not a sin for a single young woman to have outside of the logic of emotional purity],” etc).

b.      The young woman reported leaders addressing her from emotional purity: Often, when the young woman would share what leaders had told her, some aspect of emotional purity would be mentioned.  For instance she quoted one of her leaders as telling her that if she was not prepared to marry me tomorrow she needed to have no emotional involvement with me at all today (a classic legalistic stance on emotional purity).

c.       Leaders confessed to legalism: At least one leader was rebuked for and confessed to me taking a legalistic stance on emotional purity issues with regard to myself and this young woman.

d.      The young woman explained her actions in emotional purity terms: Later, as our conflict began, the young woman would frequently cite emotional purity terms and concepts to support and justify her actions (such as, “I can’t talk to you in private any more because that’s not guarding my heart”).  Note that while the phrase “guard your heart” is common among Christians (originating, as it does, from the Bible) emotional purity adherents take it from its Biblical context and from the context in which other Christian groups us it and use it to mean “to keep oneself free from emotional/romantic entanglements” rather than “to guard oneself against wicked thoughts.”

e.      The young woman confessed to legalism: On more than one occasion, the young woman confessed to and apologized for legalism.  On other occasions she would try to justify an action using various emotional purity terms while admitting that it was a little “legalistic.”

f.        The young woman lacked any other framework with which to evaluate gender interactions: Shortly before we lost contact for the last time, the young woman confessed that, before me, she had never had a friend of the opposite sex.  Practically speaking, this means that the young woman had no idea how to handle platonic relationships, no framework in which to evaluate what was going on in them.  Lacking such a framework herself, it seems evident that she turned to leaders and adopted a framework of legalistic emotional purity from them.

Conclusion:  According to Occam’s Razor, “the simplest explanation is most likely to be true.”  Emotional purity and legalism are known to be huge factors in the young woman’s understanding of and reactions to our friendship.  They are known to be prevalent in the culture of the church, and they are known to cause the observable symptoms: paranoid accusations of romantic pursuit where none exists and a breakdown of platonic relationships.  Therefore, the simplest explanation is that the young woman believes I am pursuing her and reacts as she does because of her own internal beliefs in legalistic emotional purity, rather than any actual romantic pursuit (which was ruled out above).