What is Rape? Why our answer matters.

The word rape originated from the 14th Century Middle English word rapere which meant "to seize prey, abduct, or take by force."  Today rape is generally understood to refer to sex acts or sexual intercourse extracted from the victim via violence or threats of violence.  Rape is classified as a violent crime, and in the popular consciousness of America, it is one of the most severe criminal acts a human is capable of, rating just below murder.  It is a form of physical assault which is especially dehumanizing and damaging.  Whether the victim is an adult or a child, rape can have a lasting, traumatic effect on a person's psyche and those who commit rape are rightly stigmatized and severely punished in our society.

From these ancient roots, we as a society have expanded the definition of rape to include "statutory rape"--that is adult molestation of a child.  In some cases, these rapes would have fit under the old definition, since they were extracted by violence and threats of violence, but in many cases they are extracted via manipulation by a person in a position of trust (a parent, relative, teacher, spiritual leader, etc).  Since we consider children ignorant and naive in sexual matters, we believe they are so vulnerable to these manipulations that they are essentially helpless victims of the manipulative sexual predator and therefore legitimate victims of rape even if violence or violent threats were not involved.  The long-term damage of sexual molestation to a child backs up these beliefs and reinforce the stigma that the rape of a child is an especially gross violation of human decency.  Even in prisons, child molesters are viewed by other prisoners as the lowest of scum.

But we have not stopped there.  We have expanded the definition of rape to include taking sexual advantage of someone who is incapacitated by alcohol or drugs.  Since drugging someone is already termed as a type of assault, this was a good move, but as a society we have not been very strict to the definition of incapacitated.  While normally this would mean that the person was incapable of taking action to prevent or refuse the rapist, in many cases a woman is now considered incapacitated if she is drunk or has consumed any amount of alcohol.

Yes, while I have been striving to be gender neutral throughout the rest of this piece, you did just read that last sentence right.  Women are considered unable to legally consent to sex if they are intoxicated.  Women, not men.  There may or may not be legal jargon backing that discrimination between the sexes, but it is clearly a practical reality.  Take a look at this 2008 poster used by the Coastal Carolina University to advocate against date rape:

"Jake was DRUNK.  Josie was DRUNK."  But only Josie was incapable of consenting to sex.  Only Jake could be accused of rape.  There are several problems with this.

First of all, from a female perspective, this means that if a woman has a drink she essentially becomes a legal minor--too naive and immature to handle adult decisions like whether or not to have sex.  The person urged to "be responsible" and make the right decisions for her?  A man.  This is a giant leap backwards as far as equal rights for women is concerned.

Second, from a male perspective it denies that men are vulnerable to drug-based rape.  The lopsided application of this seems to imply that either (A) men cannot be incapacitated by any amount of drugs or alcohol (which is absurdly untrue) or (B) men always implicitly consent to any sexual activity with anyone simply because they are male (which is grossly offensive, sexist, and completely untrue).  Either way, this steamrolls over the real horror stories of many actual male rape victims, including four of these nineteen real stories.  More than that, it makes men who are incapacitated by drugs or alcohol "perpetrators of rape" if they are climbed on top of and held down by a woman who had a single sip of alcohol.  She's drunk, so she isn't held responsible for the sex act she just forced him through: he is, even though he spent the whole time muttering "no...no..." and flailing in a drugged stupor.  That scenario may sound like a fiction, but it is an actual reality.  Last year an Amherst student was expelled for allegedly raping a young woman when he blacked out at her place and she decided to have oral sex with him without his knowledge or consent.  Under these definitions of rape men who are raped are not only completely without protection, they can even be charged as the perpetrators of crime against their rapists.

The third and final problem is that people choose to get drunk and have consensual sexual encounters all the time.  That's not to say that rape is common, though some statistical studies (including the one that came up with the famous "one in five women" statistic) have been using it to say that ("she had sex and she was drunk: I don't care what she says about it, it was rape!").  But men and women very often consciously use alcohol or drugs to improve their moods and help them loosen up their own inhibitions when they're going out looking for consensual sex.  People of both genders commonly go to bars to meet members of the opposite gender for casual sex.  Established couples who want to have sex will often plan for it at the end of an evening that includes dinner and alcohol.  Newlyweds often drink socially at their weddings and afterwards may even ask for a bottle of champagne or wine to be sent up to the honeymoon suite.  According to our over-expanded definitions, all of these sexual encounters count as rape (of the woman, and only the woman).  But are they really?  Does a woman really lose her ability to make adult decisions about what to do with her own body when she consumes any amount alcohol?  Can a man who is passed out on the floor from alcohol or drugs really rape a woman who climbs on top of him and forces him inside her?  No, and by answering otherwise we are skewing the definition of rape.

But many in our society seem to be afraid that we have not inflated the definition of rape enough.  They have started an "affirmative consent" movement which seeks to redefine consent and lower the standards of proof in rape cases to preponderance of the evidence (which means 50% likely to be true, as opposed to the Constitutionally mandated beyond reasonable doubt, which is over 99% certainty).  According to this movement, explicit, verbal, sober, voluntary consent must be given at every stage of a sexual encounter or it becomes "rape."  The problem is that this isn't how human intimacy or even communication works.  Studies have shown that the majority of human communication in person is non-verbal.  Nowhere is this more true than in a sexual encounter, where one's mouth is usually otherwise occupied.  While bits of verbal communication happen and are helpful to finding out what a partner does and doesn't like, non-verbal communication is even more critical.  If a partner pulls away, they probably don't like something.  If they lean in and smile or become more enthusiastic in their own actions, you're probably doing something they like.  But that's not enough for affirmative consent. If you want to start passionately kissing, you must stop and ask for consent first.  If you proceed from foreplay to intercourse, you must stop and ask for permission first.  This from an article supporting affirmative consent, which tries to reassure worried readers by telling them that if they forget to ask consent in these instances they will probably be okay.  After all, "If both partners were enthusiastic about the sexual encounter, there will be no reason for anyone to report a rape later."  Note: there will be no reason to report a rape later not a rape did not occur.  According to the article, not asking for explicit permission before any intimate act does count as rape...but if you're good enough and she's enthusiastic enough you can persuade her not to report you for it.  That's a wonderfully heartening message for both genders (women: if you're raped under our standards, don't report it if you like the guy--basically be a rape-enabler; men: if a woman doesn't like your performance during sex, remember she can always report you as a rapist later).  Opponents of the movement have spoken out about its absurdity as well, including a Washington Post article which points out that it basically makes everyone a rapist because everyone who's engaged in any from of intimacy has probably done it without explicitly asking for permission first (including four-year-old girls who hug their dads or brothers without asking for explicit legal consent every time).  Another article raises the valid point that affirmative consent entirely misses the point.  The more welcome the action is the more unnecessary and even offensive asking for permission can be (imagine an old married couple asking, "Can I sit with you?"  "Can I hold your hand?"  "Can I put my arm around you?").  Verbal permission is generally only needed and sought when intimacy isn't very desirable to one or both parties (prostitutes make a verbal agreement to certain activities beforehand because they're only in it for the money).

It also points out that affirmative consent is causing more problems than it's solving.  Real rapists under the first and second definitions know what they're doing is wrong; they know they don't have consent.  That's why they're using violence, drugs, or manipulation of vulnerable minors to get what they want.  The best affirmative consent can do is clear up cases where there's a miscommunication between a couple as to how far they want to go in a given sexual encounter.  But is criminalizing misunderstanding really a solution?  Is a woman really raped if she agrees to a kiss and winds up in an unplanned make-out session?  Is a woman really raped if she agrees to foreplay and dry humping with a guy but he forgets to ask for permission before they both enthusiastically engage in intercourse?  Is that really the same as a person being beaten and thrown into the bushes by a masked attacker who then proceeds to forcibly penetrate them?  No, and by saying that these things are the same our inflated definition of rape has belittled the very real physical and psychological trauma of actual rape victims.

They have also led to a huge increase in men being accused of rape when they are not rapists.  There are, of course, the men who are accused of rape because of a miscommunication.  Is a man a rapist if he thought she wanted sex when they were rolling around naked in bed engaging in enthusiastic foreplay (and she remained enthusiastic throughout), only to find out later that she regretted taking things that far?  Is that really the same as a man who grabs a little girl by the head, threatens to kill her, and shoves his penis in her mouth?  By saying it is, we are trivializing the crimes of real violent rapists, and criminalizing people who are merely doing their best to please their partner.  But the expansively and absurdly broadened definition of rape has combined with the new lowered bar for determination of guilt (only valid in informal college tribunals which can, at most, expel students and label them publicly as rapists--because any criminal court in the civilized world would be ashamed to endorse such a low standard for such a severe crime), has led to a lot of people being found guilty for rape who actually just had consensual sex.  A man was expelled from St Joe's for allegedly raping a girl who explicitly and in writing invited him over to her place for sex via text message.  One student faced disciplinary action for rape after he hooked up with a girl who was cheating on her boyfriend by being with him, and she reported him for rape to protect the relationship.  Another was reported as a rapist and expelled after a woman he'd hooked up with became concerned that the casual sex she'd just consented to would damage her reputation (citation).  Most bizarrely, a few months ago a student from CSU Pueblo was expelled as a rapist for having what he and his girlfriend (the alleged rape victim) both explicitly, repeatedly, and unceasingly have maintained was consensual sex--because one of her friends assumed it was rape when she saw the girlfriend had a hickey and reported him.  Are we really willing to stand up and say that each of these men is a violent criminal on the level with someone who puts a knife to a girl's throat and tells her not to make a sound while he pulls off her pants?  On the level of a woman who duct tapes her boyfriend to the wall and shoves a vibrator up his anus while he screams in agony for her to stop and let him go?  Are we really willing to say that these women are rape victims of the same caliber as the victims of real physical trauma?  We are really sick as a society and really committed to ignoring the plight of real rape victims so we can push our political agenda if we answer yes to these questions.

And yet, increasingly, at universities at least, we do.  Something is terribly wrong with us.

Postscript:
Someone very close to me mentioned that a lot of these measures are designed to protect victims of rape from being blamed for the rape and ensuring that real rapists can't get away with their crimes.  I will say this: rape is a real crime that definitely deserves severe punishment and no one who commits such a heinous act should get away with it, or get off lightly.  As a society, we should make certain we are doing our best to protect and assist victims and exact justice upon perpetrators, especially with severe violent crimes like rape.  We should also never blame the victim of anything.  Survivors of trauma have to deal with their own psychological backlash and dark (and totally untrue) thoughts that maybe it was their fault or that they deserved it as they struggle to make sense of the senseless brutality they have suffered.  They do not need anyone reinforcing these post-traumatic psychological injuries from the outside, and blaming a victim for being a victim is also utterly senseless.  We don't tell people who get stabbed that it's their own fault for not wearing a stab-proof vest all the time.  And while it is alright to encourage people who are at risk of violence to take preventative measures, we need to understand these are stopgap measures meant to prevent attacks by perpetrators we can't catch, not actual solutions to the problem (the solution is catching the perpetrator) and that even if someone ignores these measure it doesn't make them responsible for being the victim.  If they weren't the one perpetrating the act, then they are not responsible for it, especially if it was done to them.  Period.

We should take steps to close loopholes that allow this kind of unacceptable behavior and the unacceptable escape of rapists (via excuses like: "well, she said yes to kissing, so it doesn't matter if she was screaming, crying, and crawling out of her skin when I initiated intercourse--she never actually said no"...or via ineffective investigations, weak courts, or unconscionably light sentencing).  At the same time, we have to really think about how we do this.  We have to realize that when we set these systems up, there will be some people out there who will try to game the system by claiming victim status and making false accusations.  We have to realize that when an accusation is first received, it is only one side of the story and we do not automatically know the truth of the matter.  That is, just because we have someone who's come to us claiming to be the victim, we cannot know without investigation whether or not they are the victim.  For all we know (as the above-linked case of the rape victim expelled from Amherst illustrates), the victim is the person they are accusing.  The founders of our nation realized this when they established constitutional rights for the accused.  We should not be hasty in discarding the measures they felt necessary and denying the accused due process of law.  If we decide to do so in the name of female rape victims it will give justice to, we also have to be willing to live with the fact that it will also be used to perpetrate injustice on innocent males (some of whom may even be the ones who were actually raped).  How to balance the need to bring justice for the victim with the need to protect innocents who are falsely accused is not an easy or light question.  We should not approach it as if it is, and I certainly confess I do not have the answers.

Even so, I don't feel like I should keep silent about this.  Keeping silent about a problem just makes it impossible for any dialogue on a solution to occur.  Also, I confess I have a personal stake in this.  While I have never been accused of rape or faced criminal charges of any kind, I was falsely accused (to church leadership, which wielded significant power over our lives) of stalking and harassing a young woman in the Rock--which behavior would fall under the umbrella of sexual crime, if true, and it was compared by various leaders to rape.  I had been friends with the young woman in question and for a while before we discussed the idea of getting involved romantically, I just wanted to remain her friend thereafter, and in the end I just wanted to pursue my other friendships in peace.  But false accusations and her claim to status as a victim of my supposed wrongs were used to control me, justify measures against me, and expel me from the group.  In a sense, I am one of those falsely accused of sexual misconduct--not rape, but not more than a stone's throw away from it.  I had to live for a few years with the constant fear that she would make more serious allegations about me, or even go to the police to try to gain more power over me and further punish me for wanting to go out with her.  I had to spend some time wondering whether I should go to the police first, whether I should get a restraining order against her, whether that was even a morally justifiable thing for a Christian like me to do, even though I did feel threatened by her and the leaders who were sympathetic to her.  I am free of her now, she took no legal action against me, and in the end I'm glad that my conflict with her got me out of a subtly-toxic and overly-controlling church group...but I can't help thinking about and sympathizing with victims of false accusations who aren't so lucky.  I can't help thinking, That could have been me, and someday, that might be me.  I have to say something.  Even if I'm wrong, it's better than being silent.

The Greatest Thing You'll Ever Learn...

If you’ve been following me on Facebook (and if you haven’t, the truth remains the same), I’ve had what is to me a major life event in the past week. For the first time in my life, I am in a Relationship with a capital R. I am someone’s boyfriend, and I have a girlfriend.

Questions abound, I’m sure. To start, her name is Amy. We met online. Occasionally, it seems, online dating does pan out. In my case, it panned out very well. Amy is a very attractive young woman, very pretty with gorgeous long hair and dazzling eyes. She’s a nerd, and a writer with a snarky sense of humor. She’s also a sophomore at a Christian college, studying English and Theater, and while she goes to school out of state, her hometown is in Colorado. But this only scratches the surface of who Amy is.

Amy is, in my honest opinion, a very amazing person. She is brave, able to face her fears and take risks for what she wants, even to initiate with a guy—which is not terribly common to find in a girl, even online. She is also passionate, caring deeply about the people she’s with and capable of feeling very deeply, as she has with crushes in her past. She is loyal and committed. As a friend she stuck by and supported even those who were actively and knowingly wounding her, and when faced with insurmountable difficulties at a job which—at times—was probably not even treating her legally as an employee, she still felt immense guilt and quit only reluctantly. She is not the sort of person who gives up or gives in easily. I am persuaded that she has in her that sort of heroic kindness that would give you the shirt off her back and think it no big deal, certainly nothing worth mentioning. She is amazing, and more amazing still, she really, seriously likes me.

Even before we were boyfriend and girlfriend (which we haven’t been for long), that part was taking some getting used to. It’s not that I’ve never had anyone like me before. There were a couple girls in high school, one who was, awkwardly enough, my then-crush’s sister, and another who came off as being clingy toward everyone in my family. So while I have had the experience of being liked, it was brief, shallow, awkward, and certainly not from anyone I felt anything like what I feel for Amy. Our relationship began as a mutual crush, and that in itself was strange to me. I’m no stranger to crushes, my earliest dates back to grade school! But I’ve never had anyone I like like me back. I’m so used to being the only one in a friendship who has these feelings, so used to having to suppress them and respect the other person’s cooler, platonic affections. It is still something I’m getting used to, to realize that when I really miss hearing her voice, she really misses hearing mine. That as magical as the act of holding her hand is to me, it gives her butterflies as well. It’s a strange idea to get used to, that someone feels that strongly for me, especially someone as awesome as Amy.

But it puts me in mind of stranger, greater things. As amazing as Amy is (and she is), there is One who is far more excellent than words, whose monikers include “the King of Kings” and “the Everlasting God.” While Amy has without complaint made sacrifices for disloyal friends, He silently endured a sham trial, public mocking, mutilating beating, and literally excruciating death for His enemies. Where Amy is creative, He created the world, the heavens, and everything therein, including Amy. While she is loyal, He has such faithfulness that it is quite thoroughly impossible that He should ever break His word or fail in performing it. Where Amy’s beauty dazzles, His has (on the record) struck men dumb and sent them to their knees gibbering their unworthiness to behold Him in his glory. Most amazing of all, everything Amy and I feel for each other—everything we do for each other, now and even if our relationship should be able to progress to the uttermost extent of human romance—is at best a pale shadow of the unfathomably deep love He has for us.

I am no stranger any longer to the idea that God loves me. It took some getting used to. Still, it is certainly not a truth to be taken for granted. It should change everything. I should live my life in awe of this one truth. Knowing, being liked by, and becoming the boyfriend of Amy has helped me remember this wonder, and has made me consider that the line from the old song may indeed be right: “The greatest thing you’ll ever learn, is just to love and be loved in return.”

Reasons to be an Egalitarian: Reading About Submission of Wives in Context

Okay, so I'm going to go back a few posts and revisit three passages I touched on earlier, when I was discussing how the Egalitarian position can help a man be a more Biblical husband than the Complimentarian position.  When discussing that, I deliberately left out any discussion of the following verses:

"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord."

—Colossians  3:18, ESV

"Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.  Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.  For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.  And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening."

—1 Peter 3:1-6, ESV

"Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its savior.  Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands."

—Ephesians 5:22-24, ESV

Just looking at these verses, it would seem that they spell doom for the Egalitarian position.  Here, plain as day, the Bible is telling wives they need to obey their husbands.  1 Peter 3:6 even says wives should be calling their husband "lord!"  At this point, the Complimentarians declare victory, insist on "love, cherish, and obey" as the bride's wedding vow, and prepare to walk off the scene.  After all, demonstrating that wives must be totally submissive toward their husbands is only one step away from showing that women cannot have authority over any men at all, period.

But all is not as it seems from a simple first reading, and these verses do not exist in isolation.  In understanding the Bible, context is critical.  So what's the context of these three passages?  Well, their immediate context is a set of commands to husbands and wives...and as we saw in a previous post, Complimentarianism isn't too good at taking the verses aimed at husbands seriously.  In fact, they're mostly ignored in favor of telling men to be dominant leaders (from nowhere in the Bible) and citing these verses out of context to tell women to obey.

But the larger context of these verses is even more enlightening.  These verses belong to three parallel passages in the Bible: Colossians 3:1-4:6, 1 Peter 2:11-3:8, and Ephesians 5:1-6:20.  Each passage details how Christians are supposed to live in certain situations.  The Colossians and Ephesians passages are nearly identical, speaking of, in order: general commandments, mutual submission among believers, wives, husbands, children, fathers, slaves, masters, and the importance of prayer.  In fact, the Ephesians-passage could be called simply a fleshed-out version of the Colossians-passage outline.  The passage in 1 Peter is a little different, coming from a different Biblical author, but still covers the same general topics: general commandments for all believers, commands for citizens obeying the government, commands for slaves, commands for wives, husbands, and ending with a call for overall unity.  The main difference is that verses directed toward masters, fathers, and children are left out while verses about submission to government are included.

What does this mean for us?  Well, it means that in their original context, the verses about wives being obedient to their husbands are part of a set of verses directed to Christians in various walks of life telling them how they should live in the roles within which they find themselves.  Citizens should obey their governments, slaves should obey their masters, masters should treat slaves fairly, wives should obey their husbands, husbands should love their wives, children should obey their parents, fathers should treat their children well, etc.  All three passages are also framed by general commandments to all Christians for how they should live their daily lives in all circumstances, and calls for mutual submission and unity.  In other words, the passages are sets of instructions for how Christians living very different lives are to live out the unity, mutual submission, and love that they have in Christ.

This is an important point.  Its easy to see these passages as endorsing these societal roles, but in fact the Bible does no such thing.  All three passages advise slaves on how to live within their roles as Christian slaves without necessarily saying that slavery is good or right.  In fact, in insisting that masters remember that their slaves are equals, these passages subtly lay the groundwork for future Biblical abolitionist movements, which see that these roles, while they can be lived in as a Christian, are fundamentally un-Christian in nature.

The problem for Complimentarians is, again, that their reading of the passages must switch partway through.  The verses that talk about the absolute submission of wives to their husbands are held to be universal divine edicts, expressing the pure will of God for all Christians throughout all time, and most definitely endorsing a patriarchy at home.  However, when, in the same context, the Bible talks about the absolute submission of slaves to their masters...somehow this is a not-so-eternal truth.  It's more of a command to Christians finding themselves in a certain cultural and social construct (slavery) which the Bible, rather than endorsing, simply tells them how to endure in their role as Christians.  The same goes for the verses commanding absolute and unquestioning obedience to an imperial government in 1 Peter.  Just because the Bible says, "Honor the Emperor" or "Honor the king" (in some translations), does not mean that the Bible is establishing an imperial monarchy as the only Biblical and Christian form of government.  So just because the Bible has commands for Christians under autocratic governments and slavery does not mean the Bible endorses these institutions...but somehow just a few verses later passages about how Christians are to behave in a patriarchal marriage absolutely is an endorsement of this institution.

This is a contradictory reading!  We can't have it both ways!  Either the Bible's commands to slaves, citizens, and wives are circumstancial and cultural, telling Christians how to live under certain institutions without endorsing the institutions themselves, or else all Christians everywhere are under a divine command to fight for a society marked by slavery, autocracy, and patriarchy.  Again, as in the previous post, the Complimentarian position forces us to ignore context and treat the items of a list as having totally different meanings, and this is inconsistent.  To me, it means that the Complimentarian reading is, in some way, deeply flawed, forced to distort the passage and take it out of context in order to maintain its own views imported from the outside.

Egalitarianism carries no such burden to the passage.  It sees all three passages as commands given to Christians who find themselves in social and cultural roles which the Bible does not necessarily endorse.  Rather than laying out what these roles should be, these passages simply tell Christians how to live out lives pleasing to Christ within the cultural and social roles in which they find themselves.  Citizens are to obey and honor the autocracy under which they find themselves, even though it may not be the ideal form of government for Christian principles.  Likewise slaves are to obey their masters even though under Christ both are equals.  So also wives, finding themselves in patriarchal marriages where they were literally dependent on their husbands for everything, were to obey him, even though in Christ gender doesn't matter.

What does this mean for us today?  Two things, really.  First, it means that patriarchal marriages as described in these passages are not God's gold standard of relationships.  They are not even, necessarily, something consistent with the rest of Christianity.  Like slavery and autocracy, they are social and cultural roles, and, like slavery and autocracy, we have the freedom in Christ to seek a more perfect and more Christian union.  Second, it means that the roles we take in marriage (whether submissive, dominant, or sharing), like the roles we take in government and economic life, are not nearly as important as how we live those roles, as Christians.  If we, as Christians, find ourselves in a culture of egalitarian marriages which emphasize mutual decisions over male leadership, we do not have a divine mandate to revive the patriarchy.  Nor do we, if we live under a patriarchy, necessarily need to abolish it.  Whether we show the love of Christ and His new life in us in our roles within our culture and marriage (whatever those roles may be) is far more important to God.

Reasons to be an Egalitarian: Better (& more Biblical) Sex

This post is not explicit, but due to it's topic of married sexuality and the Bible, it is probably not for younger folks.  If you are not of age to talk about sex in a mature way, this post is not for you.  Please move on.

Reasons to be an Egalitarian: You can be a better, more Biblical husband

Yesterday I posted about how I came to change my views on gender and leadership, from believing the complimentarian position that only men can lead, to holding the egalitarian position that leadership is not one of the things men and women differ on.  While I alluded to the reasons why I changed my mind, I didn't actually mention any of them.  I thought I'd start now and revive my dusty old blogging habits by making a series of posts on why I consider the egalitarian position the best in the light of scripture.  There are lots of better minds that have written on this subject, so I thought I'd start with a topic that doesn't get much attention: the idea that being an egalitarian can help you be a better man, and more specifically, a better husband.

Consider the following verses aimed at husbands in the Bible.

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them."

—Colossians  3:19

"Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered."

—1 Peter 3:7

"Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.  In the same way, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.  He who loves his wife loves himself.  For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.  'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'  This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.  However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."

—Ephesians 5:25-33

Looking at these passages, one thing is conspicuous by its absence: none of these passages contain commands for a man to exercise authority and leadership over his wife.

Now, one can argue that the exercise of authority is implied by the proceeding verses about wives submitting themselves to their husbands.  That argument could be further backed that the passages instructing parents on how to treat their children don't mention exercising authority over them either, even though it's clearly assumed that they will.  But where this analogy breaks down is when we admit that women are not children.  There is a difference between a man's wife and his daughter.  A child, still growing up, needs instruction and guidance from their parents and there are many, many verses in the Bible attesting to that and admonishing parents to raise their children well, especially in Proverbs.  Women, on the other hand, are adults who no longer require parenting, especially not from their husbands.  There are no verses anywhere in the Bible instructing husbands to exercise authority and give guidance to the lives of their wives.  From the complimentarian position, we have to simply assume it's implied by the verses about wives submitting to their husbands.  We have no other scriptural proof that it is so.

But, from such a dearth of proof comes a wealth of "Biblical" advice and commands from Christian sources.  I sat in on a number of gender talks when I was at Summitview.  The importance of leading one's wife and family was a topic that never failed to come up.  In one particularly memorable session, the entire talk was devoted to leadership by provision, and how critically important it was that we as men find profitable jobs and pursue marketable degrees so that we would be able to financially support our family in the white-picket-fence American dream (anyone with aspirations of a less lucrative career was told point-blank to abandon their dreams for money; there was even a list showing which careers were most profitable and thus which occupations were acceptable for a leading, Biblical man and which weren't).  The topic of male leadership is proclaimed everywhere in complimentarian Christianity.  If someone is decrying the loss of masculinity in the church today or the record numbers of men who are up and leaving their families, odds are the solution they'll propose is that men become better leaders and exercise more authority.  According to the complimentarian view, the essential thing for making a good, godly husband and a good, godly man is nothing more or less than the exercise of authority and leadership.

The problem with this is that our proscription for godly men is not at all the same as the Bible's.  Ask the Bible what advice husbands need to hear, and it isn't "lead your wives and provide for them," but "love your wives and understand them."  We may brush this aside as a non-issue, perhaps a mere cultural difference (like early church men somehow already knowing how to lead whereas ours do not), but the truth is that this is more than a simple disconnect.  There's actually an inherent contradiction that arises when we put the emphasis for husbands on leading rather than loving in their marriage.

Take, for example, this scene that played out at my register yesterday.  A young couple was in line buying a variety of groceries and obviously enjoying themselves.  When it came time to pay, however, a disagreement arose.  She wanted to split the transaction.  He wanted to pay all of it.  Very likely the pair shared finances to some degree, so it probably made little difference whose account it came out of.  However, the man felt his prerogative to provide and lead was being threatened.  He insisted.  Things became physical.  He shoved her forcefully away from the checkout stand, told her harshly not to get in his way, and swiped his card, insisting I allow him to pay the entire bill.  Now, some questions.  Was the man leading?  Well, certainly.  He fulfilled the prerogative to provide by paying, and he exercised authority by making sure he got his way.  Was the man loving?  I would say just as certainly no.  And now, for the real question: was he Biblical?  If we go by what the complimentarian position defines as Biblical for men, then yes, or nearly yes, because to that position the most essential part of manhood and being a husband is to exercise authority and provide leadership, which he did (albeit not in a very gentle way).  However, if we go by just what the Bible actually says, we'd have to say certainly not.  He was harsh with her, not gentle or loving.  He did not try to understand her at all or honor her.  He certainly did not show the same kind of self-sacrificial love to her that Christ shows to the church.  He dominated her.  This is the disconnect: in the Bible, his behavior was unambiguously wrong, but in complimentarian morality he was right or at least on the right track.

When our views lead us to different moral conclusions than the Bible, I think it's high time we reexamined our views!

But the disconnect goes deeper.  A few years ago I had the privilege to acquire the book For Men Only by Shaunti and Jeff Feldhahn.  I recommend it and its companion For Women Only for anyone who wants to understand gender differences and the opposite sex better (which, Biblically, should be a goal for all husbands, citing 1 Peter 3:7).  Each chapter is dedicated to one of the most commonly reported (by women) misunderstandings between them and their spouse.  One chapter is titled, "Your Real Job is Closer to Home."  The thrust of the chapter is how many husbands believe that their financial provision is their best or a major way of expressing love for their spouse.  They put in long hours at the office, they work hard for the promotion they don't really want, they work nights and weekends to get that extra paycheck...and then come home to a wife and family that feels positively abandoned by them.  Why?  Because when it comes to the type of love wives and families need from their men, the love that provides monetary things is way, way down on the list.  Most of the women surveyed by the Feldhahns (who based all of their writing on comprehensive surveys of actual couples, etc) would much rather be married to a poor but affectionate man rather than a hard-working provider who was never there when they needed him.  Another chapter of the book, if I recall correctly, was dedicated to addressing the misconception in men that women talk about feelings because they want them fixed by the man rather than simply understood.  The problem for the complimentarian husband is that his ideology predisposes him to make both mistakes.  Complimentarian ideology says that leading, fixing, and providing are all essential not only to the role of a husband but also to a man's very masculinity.  Certainly it holds these things as more essential for husbands to practice than love, emotional connection, and understanding.  The problem is that wives find the opposite is true and the Bible agrees with them!  To be good, Biblical husbands, men must agree with these priorities as well.

This doesn't fly in complimentarian theology.  In fact in the Bible's emphasis on husbands loving and understanding their wives we probably see the stage set Biblically for the end of the patriarchal system, much as the Bible's insistence that masters treat their slaves as brothers in Christ spelled the eventual emergence of Biblical abolitionist movements.  If we insist on complimentarianism, we're forced to hold a believe that contradicts scripture when it comes to where our priorities should be as men and husbands, and one which, at the very least, predisposes us to be bad husbands and very possibly unbiblical ones.  If we instead discard the belief that leadership and provision are divinely ordained roles every husband must fulfill, we are much more free to obey the Bible's commands to husbands and to better love our wives.

A Journey to an Egalitarian Complimentarity

Men and women are different in many ways.  This is a pretty well established and accepted fact.  There are some obvious sex differences, and then some less-obvious physiological and psychological differences.  Among these fall the reality that men tend to have greater upper body strength and the saying that "men are like waffles, and women are like spaghetti"—referring to one gender's tendency to compartmentalize topics vs the other's tendency to run them together in a complex flow of ideas.  These latter apply only generally, though, as there are some men who've learned to string together topics like spaghetti and some women who think in highly organized boxes—and also some women with incredible physical strength.  In general, all of these differences (where they exist) compliment each other.  The complimentary virtues of sexual differences are obvious, but psychological differences are also generally complimentary as well with the unique approach of each gender bringing something different to the table (sometimes it's more advantageous to think and speak in topicly-focused waffle squares, sometimes it's better to be able to explore the connections between disparate topics with the flow of spaghetti).  But in Christian circles there is another difference that is often talked about, one that is often the actual topic implied whenever the idea of male and female complimentary differences is raised: leadership vs service.  In this complimentarian view, men are seen as naturally, universally, and divinely suited for leadership whereas women are given the role of serving and helping under that leadership.  Since leaders need followers and followers leaders the relationship is complimentary.  Since Christianity further holds that leaders are not above their flocks in terms of value (at least on paper), it's also a view of equality.  It is, above all, something that the Bible clearly teaches.  This is what I was raised to believe, and this is what pretty much every church I've ever been in has taught.

But that is precisely what I've come to question of late.  To be honest, the idea of a gender heirarchy was never something that set well with me.  It started with the fact that the passages used to support the idea of a male heirarchy are...problematic at best.  Take the prototypical proof-text for the complimentarian position: 1 Timothy 2:12.  While the complimentarian position takes as plain-gospel-truth-seriousness only the part about women being forbidden to exercise authority or hold teaching positions over men, the rest of the passage is something that obviously requires a more in-depth approach.

"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."

—1 Timothy 2:11-15

The whole thing about women keeping silence in churches is not something we practice these days, and in fact, it seems barbaric.  As for that last part, the whole idea that a woman will be saved through childbearing seems like proposing some alternate gospel that applies only to women (salvation by grace through faith for men, but through childbearing and good works for women?).  But looking at the passage beyond the level of using it as a proof text was something that was never really done in any church I attended, same for a lot of the other problematic gender passages (such as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, or 1 Corinthians 11:3-16).  I confess that I never really knew what to do with these passages, so I did my best to ignore them.  This was where the disquiet started, because I knew that ignoring a difficult passage so scripture wasn't really any way to understand the Bible.

The next blow came, honestly, at Summitview, the church I attended during my college years.  As I mentioned in a previous post, the church took the traditional complimentarian view and defended it well from the Bible (though still without really sorting out any of the complexities surrounding the proof texts).  While I would view their public position as one that is very Biblically supportable, private practice was another matter.  In practice, all women were encouraged to marry, have children, and take support roles in the institutional church, while all men were encouraged to marry, be the dominant authority at home, and enter ministry in some sort of leadership role.  Obviously not everyone could do that, but the popular perception was that those who could and did were better off and more faithful to God than those who did not.  This, however, was but the tip of the iceberg.  The rest of it I glimpsed passing shadow-like beneath the surface of the public facades church couples maintained.  I witnessed a small group leader publicly rebuke his wife for being tired and distracted during his lesson (with no honor, love, service, or understanding for her at all—in contrast to verses which tell husbands they must treat their wives with all of these things: 1 Peter 3:7 and Ephesians 5:25-33).  I heard about men who tyrannized women in private, to the point where one wife had to ask her husband's permission before meeting with her friends.  While I recognized that this abuse was yet another example of the church warping a good public teaching and warping it in to a bad private practice, it had the same effect on me as their warping of emotional purity principles: the abuse of the principle set the stage for me to question the assumed legitimacy of the principle itself.

Still, I did not question the principle immediately.  After all, how else was I to understand these verses?  What other legitimate interpretation of them could there be?  I did not know any, so I simply continued to ignore and avoid the question wherever possible.  However, all that began to change.  The first hint came from online dating, of all places.  There I met a Christian young woman who impressed me by presenting a more egalitarian interpretation of Ephesians 5:22-33 (pointing out that the whole passage begins with a command for all Christians to submit to each other, not just wives to husbands) which impressed me.  While nothing came of that relationship, the stage was still set for taking a more serious look at the topic of gender hierarchy and the problematic passages that seemed to support it.

The opportunity to do so came when I found and bought the book Discovering Biblical Equality: Complimentarity Without Hierarchy.  For the first time, I found a book that wasn't afraid to delve into those problem verses, and one that made an honest effort to set them in context and understand what they meant.  I found their explanations made sense, and were surprisingly insightful.  For instance, with 1 Timothy 2:12, the book reminds readers that the verse is set in the context of a church that was obviously having troubles with false teachers, possibly with early Gnosticism, and reminds readers that this was the site of the huge riots where people were chanting in the street for hours "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians" (Acts 19:23-41).  It even goes into a little history on who the Ephesian Artemis was and how she differed from the traditional Greek Artemis, then ties these together by showing how the 1 Timothy 2:11-15 passage is specifically tailored as a rebuttal of a particular woman attempting to bring cult of Artemis and Gnostic teachings into the church by dominating men and teaching the primacy of Eve instead of learning her new faith and insisting on singleness and abstinence from childbearing in order for salvation.  A similar exploration of the passage can be found here.  All in all, I was impressed by the egalitarian position, which asserts that—while men and women differ and are complimentary in many ways, gendered hierarchy is not one of them.  I was forced to admit that even if I did not agree with the egalitarians in the end, I at least had to consider their position defensible, much like my view of Armenianism in the free-will vs predestination debate (I would consider myself a Calvinist, but I concede that the Armenian interpretation is a valid alternative).

But reading this and then getting involved in a feminist debate on Facebook caused me to reflect on my own complimentarian position.  I was forced to look critically at the interpretations of these passages that supported male-only leadership, to reflect on the arguments used to support gender roles from the Bible.  In the end, I found them wanting.  Any argument, sustained long enough, goes back to Genesis and claims of a Biblical male-female hierarchy there, but in an honest reading of the text it simply isn't to be seen.  Men and women are both together given authority over the animals (note the plural in Genesis 1:28).  Adam's sin isn't a failure to properly dominate his wife but rather his decision to listen to her over God (Genesis 3:17), and Eve's isn't breaking out of gender roles (which are established as part of the curse, butted right up against extreme pain in childbirth in Genesis 3:16).  Furthermore Paul's references to this section to justify the complimentarian interpretation are taken out of context in ways that reduce them to nonsense (in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, he was addressing Gnostic and cult of Artemis teachings about Eve as the preeminent being, the embodiment of knowledge, the precursor to Adam, etc—and ignoring these facts make hash of attempts to understand the last verse of the passage, which is why most complimentarian commentators simply ignore it).  In the end I found that I could no longer take the complimentarian position seriously anymore.  While I admit that there's some decent rhetoric out there to support it, I can no longer see that rhetoric holding up to and making good sense of scripture.  When I realized this, I realized that I would need to change my views to reflect what I believed the Bible was actually trying to get across: the idea that women and men are equal, though different, and may be equally fit for leadership roles.

I recognize that this is a minority position, and one maligned as un-Biblical by the majority of Evangelicals, who believe it's a position based solely on pandering to the culture and ignoring scripture.  Such accusations do not change the truth however, and I cannot take them or anyone who makes them seriously.  Such people very often put pandering to their own patriarchal subculture ahead of understanding the Bible, using the latter merely as a collection of convenient proof-texts seeded into difficult passages they ignore.  As for me, my journey was not one of learning to ignore the Bible and pander to culture, but of learning that my (Evangelical, complimentarian) culture did not fit my Bible and choosing a better understanding and alignment with the latter over the former, and I have seen the same is true for the majority of egalitarians Christians.

How We Should Treat "One Another": a brief Bible survey

At church this past week.  We were given a "homework assignment" to find some of the "one another" verses: verses that direct us as Christians in how we are to behave toward each other.

There are a lot of ready-made lists you can find out there, and making one of your own isn't that hard, as long as you have a concordance or a program or website (like Bible Gateway or Blue Letter Bible) that can stand in for one).  The challenge for me is in understanding the list, going beyond a simple collection of chapter and verse citations to actual directions I can apply to my life.

So below I've sorted the results of several lists, grouped them by theme to try to get a feel for the overall message the Bible is telling us.  This is not an exhaustive list, merely a short one composed of other people's lists that I could find in a quick Google search.

Verses about Service:

• John 13:14: "If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet."
• 1 Corinthians 11:33: "So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—"
• Galatians 5:13: "For you were called to freedom, brothers.  Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another."
• Galatians 6:2: "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."
• 1 Peter 4:9: "Show hospitality to one another without grumbling."

Summary: Christ is to be our example in service, because He came to serve us.  We are to show our love through serving.  We are to use our freedom to serve and help one another.  We are to do it without complaining.

Verses about Love:

• John 13:34-35: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.  By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
• John 15:12: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
• John 15:17: "These things I command you, so that you will love one another."
• Romans 12:10a: "Love one another with brotherly affection."
• Romans 13:8: "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law."
• 1 Thessalonians 3:12: "and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another, and for all, as we do for you."
• 1 Thessalonians 4:9: "Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another"
• 2 Thessalonians 1:3: "We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers, as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing."
• 1 Peter 1:22: "Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart."
• 1 John 3:11: "For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another."
• 1 John 3:23: "And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us."
• 1 John 4:7-8: "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God, and knows God.  Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love."
• 1 John 4:11-12: "Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.  No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
• 2 John 1:5: "And now I ask you, dear lady—not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one that we have had from the beginning—that we love one another."

Summary: Love is paramount.  It is the only one of these that is actually called a command.  Love is the first command, Christ's command, a new and an old command.  Love fulfills the law.  Christ is to be our example in love.  We are to love because He loved us, as He loved us.  God the Father is also our example in love because He is love.  Our love is to be a sign that we know Him and that we are true disciples of Christ.  Failure to love casts doubt on whether or not we truly know God.

Verses about Encouragement:

• Romans 1:12: "that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine."
• Ephesians 5:18-19: "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart."
• 1 Thessalonians 4:18: "Therefore encourage one another with these words." (speaking about the resurrection and rapture)
• 1 Thessalonians 5:11: "Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing."
• Hebrews 3:13: "But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called 'today,' that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin."
• Hebrews 10:24: "And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works."

Summary: We are to encourage each other with our faith, with reminders of the coming rapture and resurrection, and with songs.  The goal is to encourage each other to love and do good works, and to keep our hearts from being hardened by sin.

Verses about Unity:

• Mark 9:50 "Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again?  Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."
• Romans 12:4-5: "For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another."
• Romans 12:16: "Live in harmony with one another.  Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly.  Never be wise in your own sight."
• Romans 14:19: "So let us then pursue what makes for peace and mutual upbuilding."
• Romans 15:5-7: "May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God."
• 1 Corinthians 7:5: "Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." (in context this is talking about sexual unity between married believers)
• 1 Corinthians 12:22-27: "On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require.  But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.  If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.  Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it."
• Ephesians 4:1-3: "I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."
• 1 John 1:7: "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin."

Summary: Unity is our identity.  We are one in Christ.  We are one body with many parts.  We are not who we are by ourselves.  We are only "us" together.  We are therefore to be together regularly, welcoming each other, having fellowship with each other, sharing our highs and lows, sympathizing with each other, and being at peace with each other.

Verses about Honor:

• Romans 12:10b: "Outdo one another in showing honor."
• Philippians 2:3: "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves."

Summary: We are to have only one rivalry, only one competition, and that is in who can honor the other more.  This requires humility on our own part.

Verses about Instructing:

• Romans 15:14: "I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another."
• Colossians 3:16: "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God."

Summary: We are to be filled with goodness, knowledge, and Christ so that we may instruct one another in all wisdom.

Verses about Greeting:

• Romans 16:16: "Greet one another with a holy kiss.  All the churches of Christ greet you."
• 1 Corinthians 16:20: "All the brothers send you greetings.  Greet one another with a holy kiss."
• 2 Corinthians 13:12: "Greet one another with a holy kiss."
• 1 Peter 5:14: "Greet one another with the kiss of love.  Peace to all of you who are in Christ."

Summary: We are to greet one another, and it is to be with a kiss.

Verses about Forgiving:

• Ephesians 4:32: "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you."
• Colossians 3:13: "Bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgive you, so you also must forgive."

Summary: We must forgive each other.  Christ is to be our example in forgiveness.

Verses about Submission:

• Ephesians 5:21: "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ."
• 1 Peter 5:5: "Likewise you who are younger, be subject to the elders.  Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for God 'opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.'"

Summary: All of us are to be submitted to each other out of humility and respect for God.

Verses about Honesty:

• Ephesians 4:25: "Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for are members one of another."
• Colossians 3:9: "Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices"

Summary: We are to no longer practice falsehood, but to be honest with each other.

Verses about Praying:

• James 5:16: "Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.  The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working."

Summary: We are to honestly confess our sins to each other, and pray for each other's spiritual healing from these sins.  These prayers are effective.

Verses about not Judging:

• Romans 14:13: "Let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but decide rather never to put a stumbling block or a hindrance in the way of a brother."
• James 4:11: "Do not speak evil against one another, brothers.  The one who speaks against a brother or judges a brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law.  But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge."

Summary: We are to not judge, speak evil of, or hinder one another.  To do such things reflects negatively on our view of the law, under which Christ holds us forgiven and blameless.

Verses about What Else NOT to do:

• Galatians 5:26: "Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another."
• 1 Thessalonians 5:15: "See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to good to one another and to everyone."
• James 5:9: "Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you be not judged.  The Judge is standing at the door."

Summary: We are not to provoke, envy, grumble against, or do evil to one another.  Instead, we are to seek to do good to one another.

 I have to admit that all of this is rather humbling and convicting for me.  I spend a lot of time alone.  I could spend a week or more without speaking to a single person.  I have a very solitary nature.  But God has called me outside my comfort zone to be a part of a larger community.  That's not something I'm good at, but it's something I need.  I need to serve and encourage, and I need encouragement myself.  I need prayer.  I need love.  I need the kind of community that would exist if we actually did this, and none of it is happening without me stepping up to bat and doing it myself to others.

One thing that did get me thinking was the verses about greeting each other with a kiss.  It's easy to dismiss this as an outdated social custom, like wearing togas, and headdresses, and hats.  But the Bible says this one repeatedly, through different authors.  That alone makes me wonder.  Then I think about the reasons why we don't kiss other Christians.  We're generally alright with kissing close family members, but other Christians we greet with a respectful handshake or a casual "Hey."  But I think the Bible is deliberately calling us to use the same greeting for fellow Christians that we would normally only use for close family.  After all, that is what we're supposed to be as the Church, a family.  And there is something to be said about the profound and elusive power of touch on our psyches.  A kiss may make us uncomfortably close to some people, but maybe those "untouchables" are just the people we need to touch, to remind us that they are a part of us, and to remind them that they are honored and family in Christ.  There's also the whole idea that Christianity isn't supposed to leave us content in our comfort zones in the first place.  It's definitely something I'll need to look into further.

Objections to Online Dating

For the past two months, God has been leading me towards online dating. I know that this is a decision that some of my friends will probably object to. I was not sure about it myself at first either, so I wanted to take the time to address some of the objections, to be sure I am not overlooking some bit of wisdom.

The first objection that comes to my mind is 1 Corinthians 7:27, "Do not seek a wife."  It seemed like a very straightforward online-dating-nixing command...one which, of course, would have broader applications, too.  But this was before I read the context and noticed that in verse 25 Paul explicitly says that this is not a commandment from the Lord, but simply his own personal judgment.  Some would say that this doesn't matter and would insist that because verse 27 is in scripture, and all scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) therefore the advice to "not seek a wife" is really a command straight from God that must be obeyed, verse 25 notwithstanding.  In fact, they would accuse anyone who tries to downplay verse 27 as Paul's opinion of cherry-picking verses and only paying attention to the ones they want to follow anyway.  The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is completely hypocritical.  In order to say that "Do not seek a wife" is a Biblical command of God and maintain the accusation that those who ignore it are cherry-picking amongst inspired scripture, one must do some cherry-picking of their own.  The whole argument completely ignores the context and specifically contradicts verse 25--which is just as much a part of inspired scripture as verse 27!  Some might ask if it really matters whether the words "do not seek a wife" come from Paul or God Himself, but it is a matter of no small importance.  After all, these words are not the only words of the Bible that are attributed to someone else.  If we go about ignoring these attributions, the Bible becomes a meaningless jumble of clashing words which can even be used as a proof for atheism--after all, it says at least twice, "There is no god" (attributed to the fool, Psalm 14:1 and 53:1).  So if we do take all of Scripture as inspired, we must take to heart the fact that 1 Corinthians 1:27's advice for singles to not seek out a relationship is simply Paul's opinion of what is best for them.  While it should be given due weight as the words of an apostle, it should not be allowed to override the direction of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

Looking for other objections, I found that they came mostly from emotional purity groups, who did not object to one seeking a wife, but are pretty vocal about seeking a spouse in a way they don't condone.  This is hardly surprising, since emotional purity would see online dating as its opposite (since of course "dating" is always code for sleeping around in the eyes of emotional purity, and doing it online now means your sleeping around with total strangers).  Looking at one such group's website, I find that the first objection is that I am being unfaithful.  I am putting my faith in a website rather than God, and I should just keep praying and waiting around for God to act.  There are several problems with this.  The first is that this line of reasoning essentially says that faith equals passivity.  This is actually a fairly common thought among Christians, but I'm not sure where we get this idea.  It certainly isn't from the Bible.  In the Bible, faith often compels people to action.  By faith, Abel offers a sacrifice to God, Noah builds an ark, Abraham leaves his homeland and sacrifices his son, Isaac and Jacob bless their descendants, Joseph elects to be buried in the promised land, Moses' parents hide their son, Moses refuses his status as prince of Egypt, wanders in the wilderness, returns to free Israel, keeps the Passover, and crosses the Red Sea...the list could go on and on.  Why then do we think that faith in some aspect of our lives is to be completely passive in it and wait around for God to miraculously make up for our total failure to take initiative and use the resources He's given us?  When we do this, are we not like the man who buried his talent in the ground, rather than the two who invested theirs (Matthew 25:14-30)?  Note that in this parable of Christ, it is the two servants who took initiative and acted that are called "faithful," while the one who sat around being completely passive is called "wicked" and "slothful."  There is nothing faithful about laziness.  Of course the whole idea of the "just wait for God to do it all" approach being faithful falls apart wen the Spirit has actively commanded us to do something (such as, in my case, approach online dating).  We can never claim to be faithful to God when we are ignoring or disobeying His direction in our lives!

Another objection is that I should not be even considering a relationship if I'm not ready for marriage. Am I ready for marriage? I confess this is a question I have often asked myself. How can I be financially prepared when I rent the smallest bedroom I've ever lived in, have lots of school loans to pay off, and make only $16k a year? That doesn't seem like enough to start off with, and might it actually be so little that it would discourage a match? How can I be ready for marriage emotionally and spiritually when I have never even been in a relationship before? Everything I have learned and observed tells me that relationships are hard, and that marriage is about the most epicly difficult thing two human beings can choose to do with their lives. How can anyone honestly say they are ready for that?! But going back to faith, I am reminded that these are all the wrong questions. If I am to be married, it will not be my strength, my finances, my emotional and spiritual maturity that will get me through and in which I should place my confidence. My confidence and my faith should be in God. If I allow these other concerns to stop me when He calls me to seek a wife, I am found to be looking at the waves rather than the Master of them.

Another objection is that dating is promiscuous by its nature (this argument specifically from an emotional purity standpoint).  This applies specifically to situations where one is dating multiple people simultaneously, or a number of different people in succession.  Both are necessary evils of the online dating strategy, and emotional purity proponents would put the emphasis on evil.  But, as I have elaborated at length before, there is no inherent evil, no sin, in opening oneself romantically to another.  There is further, nothing in the dating process which necessitates premarital sex any more than there is anything inherent in marriage which necessitates adultery.  Furthermore, dating and "courtship" produce different expectations and thus different approaches and attitudes, which leads to a general misunderstanding when one attempts to look at one with the attitude of the other.

In the typical emotional-purity approved courtship, a couple will know each other for years as "just friends" before courting and during this time they will be extremely careful to "guard their heart" and make sure they feel no romantic or sexual attraction for each other at all, sometimes to the point of not really even being friends.  Then, one day, some authority figure will give them the green light and they will begin courting.  Since the whole point of the emotional-purity courtship model is to make sure you only "give your heart" to the person you marry, it is assumed that if a couple begins courting or is even approved to court, they will marry, and probably within a matter of months.  Since the moment you begin courting, marriage is (assumed to be) certain to follow, courting couples may feel free to exercise very little restraint and simply give themselves heart and soul to each other.  The emotional pace of the relationship builds like the velocity of a bullet from a gun--from 0 to supersonic in less than a fraction of a second.  People who examine dating with a courtship-mindset are horrified by the thought of blasting into total emotional openness with complete strangers and giving yourself away completely to people you may not wind up married to--not to mention the seemingly excessive length of dating relationships (two years is forever for a courting couple).

But these conceptions are based on faulty assumptions.  In the typical purposeful dating, emotional speed builds more slowly than in a courtship.  If a courtship takes off like a bullet from a gun, a dating relationship picks up speed like a semi rolling down a shallow grade.  In dating, it is understood from the beginning that any given person you date is unlikely to be the person you marry.  There is a chance, and you date to see how great that chance is.  The chance is never assumed to be 100% until you are at least engaged, which generally occurs after a couple has dated for some time.  This can lead to a more emotionally and sexually guarded approach.  You are always aware that the person you're dating may not wind up being the one you marry, so you keep your feelings from running wild, keep your secrets close until you know it's safe, and keep the other person out of your bed.  Courting couples have basically one line of defense for their hearts, which acts like a flip-switch with two settings: completely shut down and totally open.  Dating couples have multiple lines of defense which act like a dimmer switch, allow for a gradual increase in intimacy as a relationship progresses over time.  So dating multiple people does not mean giving one's heart to multiple people (in fact, if a person is dating non-exclusively, that likely means they aren't giving their heart to anyone at the moment).  It is the stance of someone who's being reserved and examining their options, not someone who's being promiscuous.

Another objection is that online dating distracts from the real world, replacing it with a virtual one.  This, again, is a misconception.  The entire point of online dating is to aid in the creation of a real world relationship.  Virtual communication that starts on a dating site but doesn't proceed to a real world meeting within a reasonable amount of time will be severed by an experienced online dater.  So if online dating is replacing one's real world with a virtual one, this simply means that they're doing it wrong and missing the point.

A final objection is that dating, and especially online dating, is deceptive in nature.  It is said that when people date they present only a facade of what they think the other person wants to see and never show their true self, and that this is much more likely to happen online where the screen forms an additional barrier to hide behind.  It is true that such deception can happen, but it is not the goal.  People who are not real with themselves and others while dating miss the point and fail to determine whether or not they would be a good marriage match for the other person.  Honesty is essential, and any breech in trust, when discovered, can often lead to a break-up of the relationship.  But online dating isn't the only place where you will find people wearing masks.  In fact, I find that one of the things that attracts me more to online dating than courtship is that there are, in my own mind, fewer masks in the former than in the latter.  In courtship, during the initial phase, my experience and my impression is that you wear a mask for years saying that you are not interested in a relationship, are not attracted to the other person, only want to be friends, and love them in a Christ-like way even if you can't really get to know them because they're a member of the opposite sex--while of course the reality is that you are interested in a relationship, are attracted to the other person, want way more than friendship, and don't really know them or love them for who they are so much as have a professional relationship with them from church.  Talk about dishonesty!  Half the time you're even lying to yourself by either denying that you're attracted to this person or saying your romantic feelings for them are a sin (when, of course, there is no such sin as emotional impurity).  Then, suddenly, someone give you the green light and you spring into intimacy with one another while donning the masks of your respective gender roles (male: leader, breadwinner, home despot; woman: servant, homekeeper, babymaker) and donning another mask to make believe to yourselves and the world around you that you actually enjoyed all the abuse you received over liking each other before you started courting (this actually happened with a friend of mine: I talked with him before, when he liked a girl but wasn't courting her and he shared how he was being called out and rebuked by leaders for his feelings for her and was basically being forced to break off their friendship--then a year or so later, when they had courted and married, he told me this abuse had never happened and it had all been his own choice).  I can think of no more dishonest way to start off a marriage than this.  In contrast, in online dating, everyone who logs onto the site is publicly declaring themselves to be looking for a relationship, and very often openly specifies what kind of relationship they're seeking and whom with.  Attraction and intentions are openly stated or candidly implied as they come into play, and declarations of love are saved until they actually mean something.  No one has to lie about how the couple met or initially felt, and relationship roles can be arranged in a way that best suits the real dynamics of the couple (which is well established by the time marriage comes around) rather than adherence to a doctrine (which is all courtship couples have to work with).  It is, of course, still possible to lie on any or all of this, but anyone who knows better than to give their bank account number to the infamous "Nigerian prince" email knows to be on their guard against deception online and liars are quickly found and rooted out.  It is much harder to expect and be on guard against deception in the pew sitting next to you.

Emotional Purity

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.