Okay, I'm about to discuss a topic that I'm definitely not
qualified to talk about... But it's happening anyway. So let's do this.
I just read this article that
is apparently going viral. Someone posted it on Facebook and there was a massive argument in the comments section about
sex, marriage, and purity pledges in the church. Instead of wasting an
hour of my time carefully composing a lengthy comment that will most likely be
quickly analyzed and misunderstood, I decided to write a quick post about it. This "quick" post turned out to be a 17-paragraph post. Oops. While I don't expect my Facebook friend will ever read this, some of
the comments were making me SO ANGRY that I feel it is absolutely necessary for my sanity that I express my opinion on the
subject. Whether anyone of consequence reads this is irrelevant.
As a side note, I'm really sorry for using italics in like, every other
sentence. I'm feeling quite passionate.
The author of the article is extremely
intelligent. She's correct in saying that the church teaches that sex is
for marriage; however, she is incorrect in saying that "it was entirely
possible that my future husband wouldn't remain pure for me, because he didn't
have the same responsibility, according to the Bible."
Now, I understand that there are some
pretty screwed up churches out there. And all churches are filled with
sinners. I mean, duh? That's the point. But anyway, nowhere in the Bible does it say
that men are not responsible for their sexual purity.
So, where exactly did this teaching some from? This sounds like an
error in the interpretation and teaching of the Bible at this specific church, rather
than an error in Christianity as a whole.
As a woman living in the modern church, I
will admit that the burden of sexual purity is much heavier for women than it is for men.
And that is definitely a double standard. However, this double
standard is the result of a very real sexism in the church that most people
will deny. It's true, though, and it's especially prevalent in conservative
denominations like Southern Baptist. When women in the church do
something other than help cook for the potluck or teach children's Bible
school, people freak out. When a woman becomes an ordained minister, the church
cringes. When these little bits of sexism sneak into church doctrine, it's easy
to say, "Christianity is stupid and sexist. So why even
bother?" I posit that it is not the Bible and its teachings that are
sexist, but the patriarchal system in which Christianity is primarily practiced.
(Anyone reading this can feel free to disagree with me - just comment and
tell me why!)
Anyway, let me come back to the article...
the author complains that the church basically turned her off to sex and
anything remotely sexual - even sex with her husband, whom she "waited"
for. Obviously, the liberal world takes this as an incredible injustice.
"The church doesn't own this woman's body! Neither does her
husband. Only she owns her body. Why should she have to wait to
have sex? It's her choice."
I believe that the author's main point -
that the church, generally speaking, associates sex and the erotic with fear,
guilt, and hell - is a valid concern. It's like this: If you grow
up in the church like I did, you are essentially told that sex is bad. No
one talks about sex in the church, except to say "Don't do this ever. You'll blow
up!!" and then, in a small whisper, they add, "But it's okay if
you're married.... I guess." Rather than focusing on how absolutely
awful sex is if you're unmarried, perhaps the church should focus more on the
incredible gift that sex is, in the proper context. If you've ever read Song of
Songs, you'll understand what I mean. I completely agree that it's
unrealistic for the church to expect young people to be absolute prudes and abhor
the very thought of sex until *BAM* you're suddenly married and 100% ready to
embrace sex.
It truly saddens me that the author had
such an awful experience because of the messed-up church she attended as a
child. However, her implied conclusion is disturbing: that if she had sex
earlier (before she got married), she wouldn't have become so averse to sex.
She blames the church for ruining sex for her, for making her feel guilty
and dirty every time she has sex. But she claims that if she had had more
sex, she would be more comfortable having it and thus feel more satisfied
overall in her married sex life. I'm not sure I understand her logic. Wouldn’t more sex with other people only cheapen the value of such intimacy with
her eventual husband?
Now, in my lowly and inexperienced state,
I'm definitely not qualified to talk about this sort of
thing. But I do firmly believe that my
body is mine and it does not
belong to the church, or my future husband, or anyone else except God himself.
My virginity is not necessarily part of my identity. But I can
totally understand this woman's feelings about losing her identity once she was
married.
My parents’ marriage isn’t the best example of what a Christian
marriage ought to be, in terms of the physical.
They never kiss and they never touch each other, or if they do, it’s not
in front of anyone. Maybe the transition
from purity pledge-mindset to marriage-mindset would be a lot easier if the
church emphasized the benefits of sex within a “safe,” committed marriage. And yes, I do think that my parents’ generation
of Christians is overly prude and continually associates sex with evil and sin –
even within the context of marriage. And
that’s rather unfortunate, considering God made our bodies incredibly responsive
to physical touch. This is to be enjoyed
within the context of a healthy, committed marriage relationship. That’s the way it was originally intended.
This topic is important to me because I,
like the author, took a pledge of purity when I was in young. I vividly remember
putting on the tiny silver ring for the first time and reading some important
verses from the Bible with my mom. In
fact, I picked out the ring and ordered it myself. No, my father didn’t give the ring to me, and
no, I didn’t get it from a boyfriend. It
was my decision, and guess what? It’s still my decision.
 |
| It has a rose on it... GET IT?! |
This purity pledge is not as cult-ish as it sounds. It's a
promise born out of a sincere desire to remain a virgin until you are ready to
enter into a lifetime union with another person. Nobody forces you to make a purity pledge (at least,
not at my church). You don't make a purity pledge to prevent yourself
from going to hell. You save sex for that one person in order to cement
the union in a way that you have never done with any other person. It's a
special thing. It's not... cheap. It's also a way to protect
yourself from emotional and possibly physical harm.
But the purity pledge mentality is seriously flawed. Like the author of the article mentions, the
purity pledge encourages young women to believe that God is creating a perfect
fairy tale marriage for her while she maintains her promise of abstinence. A young girl wants very desperately to
believe in fairy tales. “If you would
only just stay pure, God will reward you with a great marriage.” First of all, that’s not how God works. He doesn’t give us what we deserve; he gives
us what we don’t deserve. He treats us with grace and forgiveness. He is not your Jewel Osco rewards card. He doesn’t give you points for doing the “right”
thing. And besides, I’ve seen far too
many problems in my parents’ marriage and in other Christian marriages to
believe that Christian marriage is fairy tale material.
| Exhibit A: This is the "God-is-writing-me-a-perfect-fairy-tale-love-story" lie that every Christian girl believes in. |
So after all of this waiting, then what? ……. He better be one hell of a guy, God, I used to think to
myself. Well, guess what? Having sex is not a demoralizing
experience. God didn’t design us to be
ashamed of our bodies and our sexuality.
He created that! You can be
spiritual and sexual at the same time,
in the context of a healthy, committed marriage. Personally, I think my spirituality and my
sexuality are the two most intimate parts of me. (That’s probably the weirdest sentence I’ve
ever written. Ever.) So why wouldn’t I reserve those two things for
my spouse? I know it’s easy for me to
say all of this because, y’know, I’m not married. But I hope to be one day, and this is where I
stand right now.
The author claims that, because of her extremely negative experience
with the church, she is “convinced that the entire concept of virginity is used
to control female sexuality.” I think
that, to some extent, she may be right. Before
you jump out of your pew to throw your Bible at me, hear me out: by placing so much emphasis on female purity,
and comparatively less emphasis on male purity, the church is implying that
women are more responsible for remaining pure.
Unlike the author of this article, I made
the “purity” decision on my own, when I fourteen years old and perfectly able
to understand what I was doing. It seems to me that the author intends to
criticize her specific church
and/or denomination for
forcing her to make a pledge at so young an age, and also for reinforcing
stereotypical gender roles in the church (i.e. women can't be sluts, but men
can sleep around because it's a good Christian woman's job to forgive her husband
and satisfy his sexual needs). Either way, I think the author's
conclusion - that religion is pointless and all church-goers are nothing but
prude hypocrites - is a) too extreme and b) not a fair representation of the
entire church-going population.
I want to close this post with an illustration that I think is so so so damaging to young Christian
girls. When I was in my preteens, I used
to get this Christian girl’s magazine. One
day, I read a story in the magazine that was very obviously meant to be a parable.
In this story, several girls were
bringing gifts for their husbands on their wedding day. Each present was beautifully wrapped and
decorated, and each girl’s present was described in detail. Then, there was a girl who had a present that
didn’t look so great. It was kinda
ripped and the wrapping was coming off in some places and the bow was
lopsided. Apparently, the people behind
this Christian girl’s magazine thought this would be a good metaphor for sexual
purity. Girls, it’s obvious that your purity is the only valuable thing that
you can bring to a marriage. But once
you’ve lost your virginity, you are equivalent to a nasty, half-opened
present. You are damaged goods. You are basically re-gifting yourself. Do you want your husband to open that nasty
gift?
I cannot even tell you how profoundly this affected me. As a young, impressionable girl, I totally
ate this stuff up. Hell, no. I will not give my
future husband a nasty, used gift. I
will take the high road and be a virgin.
Well, the scare tactic certainly worked on me. But I didn’t realize until much later the
damaging effects of the present metaphor.
The story had nothing to say about God’s redeeming grace and love. When we mess up, God forgives us. And that’s the entire point of grace. Furthermore, the present illustration sends
the wrong message about a woman’s role in Christian marriage. What about the man’s present? Does that even matter? Why doesn’t the church talk about male purity
more often? Or are they just so much
better than women that they don’t need to be told as often? As a grown woman, I now realize that I am not
a literal present for my future husband.
I am worth so much more than the status of my sexual purity. But I didn’t know that as a girl. And that’s really screwed up, if you’ll
excuse the pun.
Wow. I cannot believe I just wrote that
much about the church and marriage and sex and my virginity, haha. I guess I
really don't care. Call me naive, but I'm very sure of my opinion on
these things. This thing dragged on waaaay longer than I expected. Anyway, toodles.
No comments:
Post a Comment