Purity Culture, Part IV: So What?

In each section below, you’ll hear from people who responded to my survey. I have ascribed everyone in this essay a fake name (I didn’t ask for names in my survey) to help delineate each individual response from the one before or after it. 

What do we teach this new generation? (Also titled: “Social distancing!”)

What do we teach this new generation? (Also titled: “Social distancing!”)

When I was 15 (and every summer before or since), I attended church camp each year at a United Methodist camp called Sumatanga. (Which, by the way, was the very, very best). 

The schedule wasn’t quite what you’d see at a more secular camp - no horseback riding, no zip lines. We had morning devotion, small groups, activities, vespers - all kinds of good, Jesus-y stuff. Being that it was a fairly progressive camp, one of the small group offerings that summer was a co-ed sexuality course. Our group leader, a woman in her mid-late thirties, made the wise choice to have each of us submit anonymous questions prior to the start of her class. At the beginning of each meeting, she pulled out the questions and read them aloud, writing them down verbatim on a sheet of chart paper, then going through the answers in a very judgment-free tone - no matter how silly the question, she treated it with the utmost seriousness, clinically explaining anything that came up. Everything was on the table.  

This freedom and anonymity allowed for all kinds of questions that we would’ve been too afraid to ask out loud. I don’t remember what the question was, but I submitted something that contained the word “semen” and mistakenly spelled it “seamen.” I will never forget the white-hot embarrassment of trying not to reveal the question was mine as she wrote “s-e-a-m-e-n” on the chart paper! 

But I’ll also never forget how rudimentary many of the questions were. Someone asked if you could get pregnant from swallowing during oral sex. Someone else asked if you could shower off an STD. There was never a day where we didn’t have a dozen new questions, and they got bolder each time we gathered. People had things they needed to know, and things they couldn’t ask anyone else. 

While it may seem shocking to some that a church camp was encouraging this kind of open and frank conversation about sex, looking back, it’s an incredibly powerful testament to how we as the church can engage our young people around issues of sexuality, curb any problematic theories or thinking, and still manage to push the concept that sex is a sacred, beautiful act meant for commitment - even exclusively within marriage. 

By the way, “s-e-m-e-n.” Just needed to redeem myself. 

——

The numbers don’t lie: abstinence-only education simply is not an effective way to keep people from having sex. 

“In 2008, federal funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programming was curbed under the Obama administration after a congressionally mandated, comprehensive nine-year study showed that students who experienced abstinence-only education in public schools were ‘no more likely than control group youth to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex, they had similar numbers of partners and had initiated sex at the same mean age.’” - Pure, Linda Kay Klein, 25

In her book, Klein talks specifically about how education that centers around purity or abstinence is not only ineffective, but the correlation that its (particularly female) students draw between sex and shame only strengthens over time. She cites research being done among three conservative Christian groups: Baptists, Catholics, and Latter-day Saints. 

(If you want to really nerd out, the paper is called “The Intersection of Religion and Sex: Sex Guilt Resiliency among Baptists, Catholics, and Latter-day Saints” by K.S. Beale, E. Maynard, and M. O. Bigger, and was published in 2016). 

In their paper, these researches write: 

“There is little support indicating that the mechanisms currently used in our society (abstinence education, chastity pledges, and religious grounding) to curb teenage sexual activity actually work. The question remains, ‘Is our focus on sexual abstinence actually doing anything?’ 

It turns out that those who are sexually active and have experienced abstinence education and/or have stronger beliefs that the Bible should be literally translated [a core tenant of evangelicalism] have more sexual guilt. ...females report significantly higher sex guilt than males (and) sex guilt from the first sexual experience is predictive of higher sex anxiety, lower sexual efficacy, and lower sexual satisfaction. 

The relationship between sex guilt and...sexual satisfaction doesn’t diminish over time; it gets stronger….This is not a recipe for young women to embark on a fulfilling relationship with their partner and we predict it could be an indicator of further sexual problems and relationships issues.”

———

A huge struggle for the women who took my survey revolves around a really specific theological idea that I wasn’t familiar with: the concept of “cheap grace.” 

As I understood if from their definitions, “cheap grace” is when a person understands their sinfulness and repents, then acknowledges that God’s grace (and particularly the crucifixion of Christ) covers their sinfulness in perpetuity, and continues sinning with the benefit of that eternal forgiveness in mind. In other words, a person just assumes that they’ll always be forgiven, so the sinning itself isn’t so important. 

If you believe pre-marital sex is sinful, then it’s a really easy sin to identify - you’ve either done it or you haven’t. That’s part of why so many churches hang their hats on it (along with attitudes about drugs and alcohol) as a major piece of identity within a community. A binary action is easy to avoid. 

“I struggle with the fact that God is loving and forgives sins when we repent. But the Bible is so clear about sex before marriage. So if someone sins somewhat intentionally (ex- sex before marriage).... and keeps doing it.... will God keep forgiving their sin when they repent and truly feel bad or does this mean the person really isn’t saved or something else? I was raised to wait until marriage. But I haven’t waited and I go through periods where I will stop but then eventually have sex again and feel bad.” - Janet


“My college boyfriend and I had healthy, consensual sex. He was Catholic, and all of a sudden, one day, he decided sex was off the table. He was so guilt-stricken that he made himself sick about it. Eventually, we started having sex again, but he refused to buy condoms in advance because doing so would be premeditating the sin - otherwise, he could simply excuse it to himself as an ‘in-the-moment’ mistake that warranted God’s forgiveness.” - Rachel

I don’t have the benefit of years of scientific data or research, but I can imagine what this understanding of grace coupled with or own failure ultimately leads to. We turn off our ability to be honest with ourselves and vulnerable to a living God because what we get from church is that sexual purity (and heterosexual purity at that) is the biggest identifier we should be grappling with, and when that fails to be something we can achieve, we have two options: relent to the endless cycle of self-hatred that comes with repeatedly breaking a promise to God, or wall off that part of ourselves and decide that it doesn’t matter that much anyway. 

Neither option is really a good one. 

Again, this is not to say that pre/extra-marital sex as sinful is a problematic teaching in and of itself. It is to say that when we set something up as the ultimate indicator of whether or not someone is a faithful Christian, then refuse to engage young people about it beyond, “Don’t do that,” we force them into the choices I mentioned above. 

There are women who waited until marriage to have sex, who have healthy relationships with their spouses, but I am willing to bet that they were taught more than “Don’t do that.” 

“I am happy that I waited until my husband to have sex. It was actually pretty easy for me to say no - until I met him. Once I met him all bets were off! I never felt shame but I was concerned about getting pregnant before marriage. I think that is the ultimate “shame” in purity culture. People have sex quietly but those that get pregnant and “shamed” for basically getting “caught.” So I think purity culture really just encourages people to keep their sex life to themselves ... and you better not get pregnant!” - Maria

If your understanding of being a Christian is that being one means buying into a more legalistic lifestyle and set of behaviors (which for many is the case - and that’s great!), then it logically follows that all of those behaviors need to be viewed on equal footing and without technicality: sexual conservatism should be aligned with a charitable heart; abstinence from alcohol should go hand-in-hand with careful speech and abstention from gossip. Adherence to this quantitative and qualitative kind of life comprises a whole person, not a set of rules. 

But the rules are so much easier to teach, so much easier to break, so much easier to cheat, and so much easier to judge our successes by. It seems we as people crave a yardstick for both measuring our own failure by and for beating ourselves over the heads with when that failure is discovered. Rather than teaching our children the nuances of faith, we simply hand them the yardstick.

“Don’t do that,” we say, with a stern look. And then we leave the room. 

———

I talked to a wonderful human being by phone about all this. She’s a longtime friend of mine who grew up evangelical, who has actually been studying this exact field for her postgraduate research. At the end of our call, I asked her what advice she’d give the church moving forward. She said: 

Changing the conversation is so rooted in ideas about gender. The church would have to get rid of, or let go of, complementarianism. The church has to let go of gender essentialism, gendered roles in the worship service and church labor overall. As long as you have this idea that women are x and men are y and that’s inherent - eg, all women are inherently nurturing and all men are inherently warriors - all of that undergirds this conversation about purity. For me, the church could ask itself, “Why are we so hung up about these ideas about what it means to be a Christian woman versus what it means to be a Christian man?” 

I loved this idea and thought it held a lot of weight, particularly in the realm of eliminating the conversation about Christianity as being tied to a particular piece of identity. There are certainly specifications laid out for how to excel at being something - a wife, a minister, a husband, a single person, a mother - but we’re all drawing our basics from the same holy book. The major thesis of Christianity as described by Christ, to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself,” doesn’t come with a caveat. 

Why do we seem so hell-bent on creating one? 

When you think about it objectively, in a faith system that’s based on service, love, radical inclusion, and humility, why is sex/sexuality/gender even a part of the conversation? And what is keeping the focus on those things keeping us from getting to? 

———

"Purity culture, in my opinion, was/is rooted in biblical truth about God's design for sex and intimacy, but it was taught in a way that a) put too much focus on this one area of obedience, leaving young women with the impression that it is the sum total of their identity before Christ and b) preloaded sex acts with so much shame that it's difficult to transition from ""Good Girls Don't"" to ""Hell Yeah Let's Get Naked,"" even in a covenant marriage. There has to be a better/more nuanced way to teach biblical orthodoxy regarding sexuality." - Michelle

Abstinence, from sex or from anything else, tends to be an easy identifier for a group of people. It’s an easy thing to teach children and young adults who may not be able to grasp the more amorphous ideals. “We don’t ______” is a lot easier to promote than “We’re people who love and give, people who value justice and mercy, and tout the benefits of radical inclusion.” 

Then again, who better to get those ideals than children and young adults, who haven’t been jaded by the world? What better group of people to hammer idealism into than that demographic? 

Overall, I get the sense that what we’re doing to our young people is unnecessarily hammering them with them they’re flawed, then offering them a solution. But here’s the thing about people between the ages of 11 and 20: they already know they’re not perfect. Everything in their lives is about measuring up - to the expectations of their parents, to the standards of their friends. Their lives are lived down a long, narrow hallway full of mirrors, comparison, and self-criticism. Christ can still be the solution to their problems without us planting the seeds of guilt within them - those seeds are already sprouting. No one is harder on them than they are on themselves. 

But no one smells bullshit faster than kids: 

“I’m still in high school and I had a mandatory “purity class” my freshman year. I would like to note that the boys didn’t have a purity class and got to do PE while the girls participated. Every time I would question why the boys don’t have one I was told they couldn’t find a male teacher to lead it. That’s bull. If they wanted to they could find a male teacher to lead this once a month class teaching from a book, they easily could. We read from a book called “and the bride wore white”. I couldn’t tell you if it was good or not because I quit reading after I saw the purity vs. cup scale [an object lesson comparing sexual experiences to chips in a teacup] while thumbing through it. I figured I didn’t really care what it said if it could pose such a biblically flawed scale of self-worth to the women and girls who would inevitably read this book. I’m not sure if you could even call what we did sex Ed because we mainly discussed the spiritual and emotional side of sex. All that aside, I have several friends who have told me that they are scared that when they do get married they won’t be able to separate sex from shame in their heads despite whether or not they will have waited by then.” - Carrie

It is no accident that young people are moving away from churches all over the country. Attendance among millennials, my peers, is at an all-time low. According to the Washington Post last year, “At the Pew Research Center, studies tracking America’s religious landscape found that although religious beliefs and practice have been declining at a rapid pace for people of all ages, the drop-off has been most pronounced among people ages 23 to 38. In 2019, roughly two-thirds attend worship services “a few times a year” or less, and 4 in 10 say they seldom or never go. A decade ago, it was more than half and only 3 in 10, respectively.”

We were brought up on doctrine and dogma, many of us raised deep within purity culture. The church, rather than being centered around the teachings of Jesus, was often centered around rules and a collective identity of following them. 

What if, instead of scaring our kids into abstinence, shaming them into judging their own biological urges, or hyper-gendering their church involvement, we instead gave them a place to be TRULY vulnerable? To share their deepest fears and concerns? More tangibly, to mis-spell the word “semen” and ask whether oral sex can get you pregnant? To admit something they’re ashamed of or embarrassed about having done? 

What if we allowed the inside of a church to reflect what’s happening on the outside? What if there was no performance needed? What if stepping through the doors became a relief instead of a restriction? 

———

Okay, so: practically speaking - what do we do to get there

I spoke by phone with my friend Emily who grew up evangelical and is now still very much a Christian, though no longer an evangelical one, about what she would’ve liked to have seen growing up. I asked her how she’d like to see sex discussed as sacred without the shame factor. Here’s what she said: 

“I have not personally found voices in a public space that are telling a good story about sex in a way that models sex in a way that I want to teach my children. I want to try really hard not to judge people who have one-night stands, or who have lots of sex with whoever they want - I am trying to get to the point where I accept that as a valid choice. To be totally honest, I’m not there yet. I don’t know how much of that is purity culture rearing its head and me being judgmental and and puritanical about sex, but I’m hoping that it’s more indicative of the reality that we are still so far off the mark when it comes to honorably discussing women’s sexuality. There doesn’t even seem to be science about it, or attention paid to it medically - how do we teach our sons and daughters about pleasure and consent, but also about how it’s sacred and important? You’re not a sinner if you have sex before marriage, but you’re not ready at 14.” 

As I listened, I tried to conjure anyone in popular culture who promotes a sacred view of sex without touting that sexual mis-steps are a dogmatic deal-breakers, and came up empty. A seemingly unbreachable dichotomy exists. On one hand, there are people who identify as sex-positive and unapologetic about their choices - some of whom even declaring sex positivity and adherence to faith in the same breath (harkening back to the origin of this series, Hannah Brown’s declaration that “I had sex and Jesus still loves me.”). On the other, there are strict rule-followers holding the line of pre/extra-marital sex as sinful. 

I submit that the church has an incredibly unique opportunity to bridge that gap. 

Here’s Emily again, with a truly brilliant observation: 

“I think one of the reasons that it was so easy for us (as evangelicals) to demonize sex outside of marriage is because we’re such a disembodied faith tradition. There’s a lot of “spirit is good, flesh is bad.” Starting there, and talking about the fact that God became flesh, God had a body, bodies are good and sacred - from there, we can get more into the ways that, just like everything else, sex and our bodies can be used to foster connection, but can also be used to harm.” 

Just like everything else, can be used to foster connection, but can also be used to harm. 

———

I’ve asked a lot of questions throughout this series, and the most important one may be this: are we, the grown ups, willing to do the risky work of stepping away from the rulebook in favor of actually engaging the players in the game? 

Getting at the heart of purity culture requires that we step away from the things that are simply not working. Young people don’t need coffee in worship - they just need somebody to shoot them straight. And the only people who can do that are the adults who’ve decided that it’s okay that they will, inevitably, run up against a question they don’t know the answer to. It will be the adults who decide if nuance is comfortable and if stepping away from the old guard is worth the risk to keep younger people interested and invested in their religious communities (which have so, so much to offer and can be so very formative to their development). 

What has been made incredibly clear to me is that this is that purity culture is layered - often lined with good intentions and executed with unintended (or unconsidered) consequences. To dissect it means to delve into the world of gender normativity, sexual politics, rape culture, and discrimination - again, not always intended, but often produced. 

What has also been made clear is that this is an amazing, pivotal moment for the church. It shouldn’t be viewed with dread, but with excitement, and with tons of hope for change. There is a way forward. There is room to grow. And in some cases, there is space for a much needed apology where harm has been done. 

It seems the best we can do may be to take everything back to basics. We must stop pre-supposing we know what’s best for people and allowing them to have some agency in making that choice; to stop prescribing labels and allowing the fullness of God to spring to life in one another. Living a Christian lifestyle and living with empathy, understanding, and willingness to grow shouldn’t be mutually exclusive. 

Maybe, as a last thought - whenever we’re sure we’ve got it all figured out, we might check ourselves by looking to the unending and radical heart of God, who has a sneaky way of reorienting even our most certain ideas. 

(And, at the risk of sounding trite, hallelujah for that.)

———

Acknowledgements: 

I was bowled over by just how many women (and men!) wanted to talk to me about this topic. In the last 6 months, I’ve had 7 hour-long phone calls, 240 survey responses, and countless coffee conversations where friends (but mostly perfect strangers) were willing to tell me what they thought: their stories, their pain, and their hope for a better future. So many took time to write paragraphs of academic paper-level discourse on this subject, to the point that they really should’ve written this series themselves. Thank you so much to all who were up for telling me some pretty intimate things, and especially to the people who told their stories of sexual violence for the first time to me. I am humbled by your openness, and I hope this series has honored your experiences. 

Purity Culture, Part I: The Object of My Affection

As usual, I want to write a little disclaimer before you start reading. When I tackle subjects like this for my blog, it’s because I’m genuinely fascinated with them. Despite the fact that I, of course, have opinions of my own, it’s always really important to me to try and present information in as unbiased a way as possible. I believe that everyone’s story should be listened to and respected. In this series of essays, you’ll hear from a lot of people about a lot of things - some I agree with, some I don’t. Through conducting an anonymous survey and talking to people by phone, I’ve collected a lot of research on this topic. Ultimately, my goal is to answer the question: “What lasting effects does growing up in purity culture have on young people?”  

Working hard on this very post!

Working hard on this very post!

When I was 16, I visited another church’s youth group. I grew up in a United Methodist congregation in Decatur, Alabama, but I often hopped around to various Wednesday night services because I had friends who attended churches all over town (and in Decatur there are a lot of churches). 

The youth minister, a cool, tall guy in his 40’s, gathered the group of 50 or so male and female 9-12 graders together to start his lesson. Some of us were seated on the floor or on folding chairs, others draped over the very loved, donated overstuffed armchairs and squeezed next to friends on couches. He held up a pristine sheet of white printer paper for us all to take a good look, then passed it to the student to his right. 

“Pass this around the circle while we talk. When it gets back to me, I want to show you something,” he said. 

While the sheet of paper made its rounds around the circle, the youth minister began his lesson on sexual purity. I don’t remember exactly what he said, so I won’t attempt to quote it, but I do remember, vividly, what happened when the sheet of paper got back to him. 

“Okay,” he said, as the last student passed him the paper. “Take a look at the difference between these two sheets.” 

He reached into his bag and extracted yet another perfectly untouched piece of printer paper, then held it up next to the sheet we’d all been passing around. The one we’d all handled was smudged, bent, dented, even crumpled in some places. Some rebel had torn off a corner to deposit their used chewing gum into. 

“This is the difference between a virgin and someone who’s had sex before marriage. One is untouched, and the other has already been used. Which do you think is more desirable to a future partner?” 

—-

It is with great surprise and delight that I report: this essay series was inspired by The Bachelorette. 

I am rarely presented with the opportunity to discuss all the issues at the nexus of my interests (religion and God, television, pop culture, and feminism), but these last few months have given me just that. If you added food to the list, I’d be in hog heaven. 

Last summer, Hannah Brown, an Alabama girl with a twang to boot, was cast as the lead of The Bachelorette. She entered the season guns blazing and unapologetic for whatever decision she was making in any given moment, causing her to become a quick fan favorite and hero for outspoken women everywhere. But her real breakout was on the episode devotees will recognize as “Fantasy Suites;” an entire television block dedicated to letting viewers watch our protagonist sexually explore their relationships with the (typically three, but this season, four) remaining contestants. 

As a viewership, the typical response is to turn a blind eye to the rather sordid and, in any other case, maybe even promiscuous dealings of our hero or heroine. We see them go into beautiful hotel suites and the cameras allow us to see the lights turning off as our various couples lie down and start making out. We smash-cut to the next morning, where couples are usually cozied up in bed, drinking coffee and basking in the afterglow. It’s just part of the show. We accept it as a necessary part of the “journey,” as do the contestants, who aren’t sure if they’re first or last in the lineup of one-night encounters.

But this year, Hannah had a suitor who wouldn’t leave well enough alone. A born-again virgin and hyper-evangelical Christian, Luke Parker, the villain of this season, demanded to know whether Hannah had had sex or planned to have sex  with any of the other contestants. When she bristled at the invasiveness of this question, he hit back with a plea about thinking they were both on the same religious page; that he couldn’t imagine she’d do anything like that if she truly believed what she said she believed. After weeks of being hot and cold about him, she finally came down on a side, putting Luke in a limo and closing what was to be the most click-baity moment of the season with the now famous line: “I f-cked in a windmill. Twice. ...I’ve had sex, and Jesus still loves me.” 

Image courtesy of Bustle.com

Image courtesy of Bustle.com

When I covered this on my (embarrassing to type this out) Instagram recap show (oh, God), I got more responses than I’d ever received. Dozens of direct messages poured in from women expressing horror in Luke’s approach, defensiveness of Hannah, and sharing stories and experiences dealing with controlling men who shamed them for their sex lives. 

The kind of support for Hannah’s sexual autonomy that my mostly-Southern Instagram audience was communicating to me represented a marked shift in the narrative within which we all grew up. In the South, sex is not openly discussed. Sure, part of that is because of a focus on decency. But mostly, the topic is avoided because the topic, by nature, is scandalous. Sex, especially sex before or outside of marriage, is believed by the general Southern consciousness to be not only conversationally indecent, but sinful. 

Having been raised in Alabama my whole life up to my 25th year, I am deeply familiar with the culture of religious purity and the idea of saving your virginity for your future spouse (an idea that I’ve always respected). It’s a second language to me. But seeing it represented on a national stage, even listening to Hannah go on NPR to discuss it, caused me to realize that for thousands of other non-Southern folks, these ideas about sexual purity and religious code seemed incredibly old-fashioned. The show brought these two spheres of my life into crystal clear focus. It was a Venn diagram: in one circle, the world both Hannah Brown and I grew up in; in the other, the #metoo movement; in the center, national consciousness and conversation. 

These issues began to fascinate me, so I decided to conduct a little research. I wanted to hear from people who were raised in the South (or, more broadly, raised in the church) about how the culture, specifically “purity culture,” or the idea that your sexual purity is tantamount to your spiritual worthiness, had affected them as adults - and, if something needs to change about how we discuss it, how do we change it? 

—-

Of the 240 people (most of whom were straight, white, Southern women) who responded to an anonymous survey I wrote about purity culture, 191 answered “Yes” to this question: 

“Have you ever been taught a lesson, at church or school, that compared a person who’s had sex to an object that’s been used?” 

Here are some of the things that their leaders at school and in their youth groups used as tools for comparison: 

  • Broken tile (school sex ed)

  • A rose or flower with the petals picked off (cotillion)

  • A piece of Scotch tape that had been stuck to every student’s skin and showed hair, oil, dirt (public school sex ed) 

  • A used car

  • Stained clothing

  • A licked lollipop

  • Toothpaste that had been pushed out of the tube 

  • An already-opened gift

Here are some anecdotes from the survey that particularly stuck out to me. I found it interesting to note the ways in which many of these lessons were geared toward young women specifically. Each paragraph is from a different survey participant: 

“A teacher brought in an empty suitcase and filled it with heavy items to symbolize each act of sexual immorality and then had each of us pick it up. ...She said we would stand there on our wedding day with a metaphorical suitcase full of heavy feelings and that we would have to share that weight with our husband and hope that he would be willing to carry it (and whatever came with it, i.e. a child, STD, emotional baggage) with us.”

“My 7th grade abstinence-only sex education class in PUBLIC SCHOOL had us all pass around a piece of red construction paper in the shape of a heart. As we passed, we tore a little piece off. When it got back to the teacher, she said, “And that’s what it’s like to have sex. You leave little pieces of your heart with everyone you have sex with and it leaves you torn and broken and not whole.” And then she had us all sign our abstinence cards. This was the final lesson.”

“Yes; we were told we (girls specifically) were like old running shoes. That we all had nice, new, pure white shoes for our weddings, but if we let one person go running in them first, they’re going to get a little dirty. If we let several people run in them first, they’ll become disgusting. And then when our wedding rolls around, everyone will talk about how our shoes are filthy because everyone got a chance to run in them, and our husbands will feel cheated because he thought he was going to to receive a spotless pair of wedding shoes, but we’re giving him disgusting, worn out wedding shoes.”

“Was...taught that if I had sex before I was married, then on my wedding day my husband would be seeing all of the men I'd had sex with beside me instead of my bridesmaids. That it would be like bringing all of those men into our marriage with us because my husband wouldn't be able to get over it.”

“My church used to have purity nights, and one year (the event’s agenda was that the girls in our youth group)...listened to videos (recorded by) the guys in our grade about why they valued a pure partner.” 

—-

Asking people in the South to discuss purity culture is a little like asking a fish to describe the water it’s swimming around in. 

What is it? Where did it come from? What are its effects? 

We’ve already talked a little about what purity culture is - the idea that your sexual purity and your salvation/worthiness as a person or Christian are inextricably linked - but to paint a richer picture of the messages people get and choices people make as a result of being raised in this sort of culture, I think it might be helpful to go to the data I collected in my survey results. We get a little anatomical here, so strap in! 

(I mentioned that 240 people participated in the survey, but participants were able to choose which questions they answered - you won’t see 240 participants in each question, as many of them were write-in and not multiple choice.) 

  • Of the 205 people who answered, 190 reported lying about their level of sexual activity as a young person for fear of sullying their reputation, whether it was their own idea or their partner’s. 

  • Of 214 responses, almost 30% of people report having been taught in church that they should “deliver sex to their husbands whenever they requested or demanded it, whether or not they were personally in the mood.”

  • Out of 240 answers, 47% of people reported having been in an “everything but” relationship where some sex acts were on the table, but vaginal/penetrative sex was forbidden, in order to preserve the technical idea of virginity.

  • Out of 236 responses, 67% reported having been taught that women should be “virginal before marriage, but able to satisfy their husband’s every sexual need after marriage.” 

  • Out of 201 responses, 149 women reported having “irrational fears about getting pregnant” because of the damage it would do to their reputations. Some of the women who answered this question were virgins who still took pregnancy tests to ensure they weren’t pregnant. 

Okay, so where did modern purity culture come from? Time to get historical!

Linda Kay Klein, the author of Pure, puts forward that the purity movement pushed its way into the mainstream largely in response to the AIDS epidemic. As a response to the sexual revolution and as thousands of Americans were dying of AIDS, the federal government began funding abstinence-only education - “first under Reagan, then more under Clinton, then still more under Bush” (22). 

“According to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States,” Klein writes, “over $2 billion in federal funding has been allocated for abstinence-only programs in the United States since 1981” (22, 23). 

And that lines up with the data I saw. Of 212 responders, almost 40% answered that if they did have sex education in their schools, it was strictly abstinence-only (including in public schools). We’ll talk about whether it was effective and why later in this series (spoiler alert: it was not). 

“...With money like that just waiting to be spent, purity purveyors previously focused on small religious audiences moved into the mainstream marketplace. ...This is when we began to see purity-themed rings, bracelets, ...books, journals, devotional, magazines, Bible studies...Within the evangelical Christian subculture, the purity industry gave many adolescents the impression that sexual abstinence before marriage was the way for them to live out their faith” (22, 23). 

It makes sense, then, that growing up in the church (especially the church in the South, especially especially the evangelical South) meant that sexual purity and abstinence until marriage were hallmarks of what made up a person’s identity as a young Christian, rivaled only by choices around drugs and drinking alcohol. But because young people are also extremely eager to talk about or hear about sex, it also tracks that young Christians would become deeply invested in abstinence constituting a major, and very visible, tenet of their faith. 

The third question - what are the effects of purity culture? That’s what these essays are meant to explore. 

——

I remember attending a True Love Waits rally with my youth group when I was in either late middle school or early high school. It was a multi-denominational event featuring a speaker and a praise band comprised of cool, floppy-haired guys. The speaker, a man in his thirties, focused on how treating sex casually in his younger years had contributed to his life derailing (drugs, children outside of marriage, etc.), and he encouraged all the youth at the event to “guard their hearts” and save themselves for marriage.

At the end of the event, there was an altar call as the praise band played emotionally evocative music in minor keys and dozens of kids went down front to hug, cry, and pray. Toward the back of the dimly lit room, there was a giant banner that each of us was encouraged to sign pledging that we would remain abstinent until marriage. As I looked around at the kids my age weeping around me, I remember feeling anger bubble up inside me. I didn’t feel contempt toward my peers, who were experiencing normal emotions under the circumstances. Instead, I felt suspicion and indignance toward the adults in the room. 

It wasn’t the idea of saving yourself for marriage, which I’ve always admired. It was the expectation - insistence, really - that a group of young teenagers could conceivably make that kind of lifelong commitment after a one-hour event (or at all). Even at that age, it seemed to me like the leaders of the rally were just trying to rack up signatures to prove something. No one was talking about sexual activity in any kind of meaningful way, or offering to follow up to make sure we understood what was going on. I didn’t sign the banner and couldn’t wait to leave. 

In a phone conversation with Emily (not her real name), a 29-year-old Southern woman who grew up in a very evangelical church, we talked about this very thing. Here’s Emily in her own words: 

“Here’s the thing - looking back, I was so bought in. I was so bought in because I love rules and frameworks, and I love being told what is right and good. In retrospect, thinking about the conversations that I had with my small groups as a middle and high school student, and then reflecting years later with my guy friends who were in these same situations, we were just told, ‘Don’t be a stumbling block.’ I had to go home and change from youth group because I was wearing shorts and I couldn’t lead worship in shorts from the stage because I might cause some of the guys to stumble. ...and the guys, it was pretty much just, ‘Don’t be complete and total animals. Don’t masturbate.’” 

Lots of my friends did sign the banner, and understandably so - they were being told by the grown ups in the room that being abstinent, and making that decision RIGHT NOW in front of everyone, was the way to be good, acceptable, and desirable, both to God and to a future partner. 

The more I thought about this idea, the more I thought about the girls in that room who’d already had sex. What must they have been feeling? 

——

Culturally speaking, no matter how progressive we think we are, we continue to be fascinated with virtue. 

As I was collecting data for this series of essays, I started to see purity culture everywhere, almost like you do when you’re thinking of buying a car and start to see it on every corner. As I listened to Jessica Simpson’s audiobook (like the hard-hitting journalist that I am), I was struck by just how affected her early career was by men telling her she was “too sexy” to sing in church. Before graduating high school, Jessica tells a story about singing at a church convention where she was angrily ripped off the stage by a male religious leader and told that her outfit (some biking shorts and an oversized top) was causing men in the crowd to lust. Cut to: years of speculation and questions about the status of her virginity until she married then-husband Nick Lachey. 

Image source: Getty Images

Image source: Getty Images

Virginity was a huge focus of pop culture in the 90’s. I remember magazines constantly asking Britney Spears whether she was also saving herself for marriage, like Jessica Simpson did. As an adult woman, it now strikes me as unbelievably invasive and frankly, creepy, that these young girls’ sex lives were considered completely acceptable topics of interviews. More recently, the Jonas Brothers brought the somewhat passe purity ring back into the forefront with their commitments not to have sex before marriage. 

And of course, returning to where it all began, The Bachelor and The Bachelorette have always brought sex into the national conversation because of the inclusion of Fantasy Suites, though the conversation has definitely evolved. 

In 2012, The Bachelorette lead Emily Maynard, a single mom, was lauded by viewers when she chose not to spend the night with any of her three remaining suitors. Sean Lowe, who appeared the following year on The Bachelor, was also famously a born-again virgin (AKA, decided at age 24 to stop having sex until marriage) and he took all three women to their overnight dates, but had sex with none of them. When he eventually married his now-wife Catherine on an ABC-streamed TV wedding, there was a thumbnail in the bottom of the screen live broadcasting the empty honeymoon suite where the couple would later spend the night. It was about as subtle as a punch in the face. 

——

In the course of this research, so many different themes have jumped out. And frankly, it’s difficult to talk about some of this stuff without coming across like I have a judgment toward anyone who goes to a conservative or evangelical church. I promise you, that’s not the case. 

Though they’re a minority, some people who talked to me have had a beautiful experience within parameters of purity culture, have chosen to remain abstinent, and had positive, healthy sexual experiences as a result. I can report with no qualms that these people exist and are thriving. 

Many women - the majority who responded to my survey and reached out to talk to me - report the opposite. I’ve read through stories of shame. LGBTQ folks wrote in to tell me they left the church after feeling like what they were being taught about sex could never apply to them. Men talk about feeling trapped within a strict set of prescribed standards around gender expectations, and the pressure to fulfill them. Lots of women talked about feeling dirty or sinful during sex, even within the confines of marriage, because those early lessons were so hard to un-learn. Most disturbingly, I’ve read account after account of sexual abuse and rape (whether this has any correlation to purity culture itself will be explored in my third essay). 

——- 

When I told my dad about this first essay and described to him the object lesson with the two sheets of paper, he was floored. He told me he had no idea that was going on that night, or that we were getting messages consistent with that at any point in ours or other church’s youth groups. We’d probably never talked about it - though that surprised me, because one of my parents’ biggest victories is stymying the idea that Southern parents don’t talk to their kids about sex. 

But his reaction made me wonder about all the moments that Mac, my son, and our new baby will have in rooms where the doors are closed to me. What messages will they be receiving? Sure, from our media - but also from leaders and role models in whom they’ve put their trust? 

If we talk about the damage that was done - the damage that no one talked about, maybe because we haven’t thought to ask about it - then we can get to the business of correcting our processes. There are so many healthy, productive ways to talk about sex with young people that emphasize its importance, significance, and (if this is your belief, as it is mine) holiness that have nothing to do with shame or fear. 

Overall, the biggest consistency I’ve seen is that young women are being taught that the state of their bodies, and what they choose to do with those bodies, are the most accurate indicators of whether or not they’re a good person. And they’re largely receiving this message in their churches, being given a set of hard and fast rules which, when broken, can never be erased. If that sounds dark (and it does get a little grizzly, especially in the third essay), then you’re reading it right. 

Next up: we tackle complementarianism (a new word to describe a very familiar concept), gender roles and expectations, and what happens when evangelical women are expected to make the split-second jump from virgin to vixen once there’s a ring involved. 

See you there. 

The Truth About Vaccines.

Deep breath, and here we go!

It started in early April when I was having a conversation with my husband, Jordan, and his parents about vaccines. Our son is about 18 months, and Jordan’s sister has a 6-month-old. We were discussing the measles outbreaks all over the country, and kept asking ourselves, “Why wouldn’t people just get vaccinated?

-

Before we go on, I want to say two things plainly and up front.

The first is that I am not a doctor or medical professional of any kind. I am an English and Religious Studies major from a small, liberal arts college in Alabama. The information reflected in this post is a result of my own reading, conversations, and research as a lay person, seeking information and answers to be better informed in my conversations around this issue.

The second is that I am pro-vaccination. I was before diving into this topic for my blog, and my research has only caused me to double down on that stance. My child has received all the vaccines available to him at this age, and I do not agree with or support the choice not to vaccinate unless specifically advised not to do so by a pediatrician because of life-threatening risk factors.

When I originally began kicking the idea for this post around, it was over a month ago. I thought I’d spend two weeks on it, but one conversation has led to another, which has led to e-mails back and forth with award-winning epidemiologists, moms who’ve chosen not to vaccinate, and vaccine experts. I have read and listened to so much - so many hours of work writing, reading, and learning - but what I’ve been exposed to is ultimately a tiny drop in the bucket of the loads of information out there to consume.

To be totally candid, one of the reasons I’ve spent so long working on this post because I’ve been trying to strike exactly the right, reverent chord of stating my opinions and the opinions of medical professionals, while still respecting the women who were kind enough to help me understand the reasons they chose not to vaccinate their children. The doctors I interviewed implored me not to be overly sympathetic to the anti-vaccination movement; the women I spoke to who didn’t vaccinate urged me to make sure I was doing my own research. It has been overwhelming, and so the best I can do here is relay the facts, as plainly as possible, and with the context I feel is important in understanding them.

What this month+ of reading, research, podcasts, and trading e-mails with new friends and with doctors has reinforced to me is that this is a very complicated issue.

-

In an effort to actually get a conclusive answer to my “Why not just get vaccinated?” question, I posed it to my Instagram followers. Because of some partnerships I’ve done, I have a few hundred followers I don’t know personally, and I knew I’d have a broad spectrum of young moms with differing opinions. I asked them to Direct Message me if they had chosen not to vaccinate their children. I expected one or two replies and wound up with a little over a dozen.

Two women in particular offered themselves as guides through the mindsets of parents who choose not to vaccinate their kids. I took them up on their offers, and wound up with loads of information they provided to me in the way of explaining their rationale. There were tables, articles, and counterarguments to popular scientific theories. They poured so much effort and compassion into helping me get a clear window into their minds.

As I delved into the resources they sent, it became clear that lots of it was hyper-specific and in-depth. I decided I needed someone who knew more about this than I did to help walk me through the various anti-vaccination arguments.

Through some friends, I was able to hook up with two epidemiologists, one of whom is an MD/PhD and the other of whom is a PhD. I won't mention them by name here to avoid any unwanted attention, but both women teach at major universities and have published very well-known papers, made discoveries, and are considered top-tier experts in their fields. For the sake of this post, we'll call them Dr. Brown and Dr. Jones. I synthesized the basic arguments from my new friends and sent them to Dr. Brown (MD/PhD) first, then Dr. Jones (PhD) a few weeks later. They were both kind enough to reply with articles, data points, and research of their own.

-

When I polled Instagram that day, I’ll admit: I did so with a very particular preconception in mind. The only people I’d ever met or heard about in the “anti-vaxx” community seemed to be willfully ignoring important data. I didn’t have much sympathy or empathy for them because I felt they were putting people at large (and now my child specifically) at risk.

Since polling my Instagram followers a few weeks ago, I have learned so much. As is usually the case when I have a strong (if uninformed) opinion about a group of people, getting to know parents of unvaccinated kids personally has softened my heart enormously.

The truth is that these parents love their children. They are nurturing, kind people, two of whom went to great lengths to type out pages and pages of their rationale for not vaccinating. Putting a human face on something that was simply an “issue” before has helped me so much in beginning to understand how people arrive at the conclusion not to vaccinate. It’s easy to call a point of view ignorant when you don’t actually know anyone in that camp; I am very appreciative of the moms who took time out to respond to me. These women are college-educated - certainly not ignorant, as is a popular refrain from the pro-vaccination camp - and have made this choice with that they feel is the best possible information that they can find. It’s very important to me that this post offers a kinder view of people with this opinion. I don’t think they’re right, but in all the cases I’ve encountered, they’re also trying their dead-level best to protect their kids. Like every issue, just because I disagree with someone doesn’t mean I have to demonize them.

And we don’t agree. In fact, we almost categorically disagree. But I have relished the opportunities they each provided: a chance to have respectful, intelligent conversation across lines of difference, especially with fellow women.

-

Having said all that, let’s dive into the data. I hope you’re ready to nerd out.

What are some of the major objections to having one’s child vaccinated?

  1. Mistrust of government.

  2. Mistrust of the medical community.

  3. Mistrust of Big Pharma.

  4. Fear of vaccine injury or overwhelming a child’s immune system.

  5. Fear of autism caused by vaccines.

  6. Lack of clarity about ingredients, AKA the “heavy metals” argument.

  7. Ethical issues over “aborted fetal cells” being included in vaccine content.

  8. Believing that natural is best, and that the body can fight off illnesses on its own.

  9. Belief in information dispensed by groups like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children's Health Defense.

  10. Concerns about vaccine shedding, herd immunity, and lack of adult vaccination.

What does the medical community say?

Mistrust of the government. It’s hard to argue against a feeling, but Dr. Peter Hotez (MD, PhD, and vaccine expert) made a great point in a podcast where I heard him interviewed: “You don’t have to trust the current administration or any of its policies to believe that vaccines are effective and important. Plenty of people who don’t work for the government promote the benefits of vaccines.” The doctors I spoke to for this post are not affiliated with the government. Although it’s possible that they’ve taken advantage of government grant programs I’m not aware of, they both work for private organizations. (Dr. Hotez also works for a private organization: Baylor College of Medicine.)

Mistrust of the medical community. Any parent of a new baby has grappled with the thousands of decisions, both large and small, that come as a part of caring for a newborn. If the first time you hear about vaccines and their benefits is in the first appointment with your 2-week-old when your #1, hyper-vigilant concern is keeping them from harm, the idea of injecting them with live viruses could seem daunting and frightening. I don’t share this concern, but I can empathize deeply. There often simply isn’t enough time in those first appointments to have the types of long, careful conversations needed to satiate the minds of fearful new parents.

Mistrust of Big Pharma. Another great quote here from Dr. Hotez: “One of the things that anti-vaxxers say to pro-vaccination advocates is that they’re being ‘propped up’ by Big Pharma.” For this reason, I specifically chose to listen to or speak with doctors or epidemiologists who have no association to the pharmaceutical industry to my knowledge. Like the government point above, these people aren’t being compensated by the pharmaceutical industry for advocating for vaccines. HOWEVER - it is 100% understandable that people would be suspicious of Big Pharma in the midst of the opioid crisis happening in this country. To those people, I’d say: It’s possible to condemn the over-peddling of painkillers while still acknowledging the benefits of vaccines.

Vaccine injury/adverse reactions. The term “vaccine injury” refers to extreme shoulder injury, encephalitis, and other serious consequences as defined by the National Vaccine Compensation Act. Soreness at the injection site and even a fever for up to 24 hours are perfectly normal as a vaccine stimulates your immune system.

Vaccine injury is extremely rare. According to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), here are the numbers:

  • Between 2006 and 2017, 3.4 billion doses of vaccines were given in the United States.

  • Out of those 3.4 billion doses, 4,328 people brought cases of vaccine injury before the court and received compensation.

  • The HRSA is careful to say, though, that around 70% of those cases were not, in fact, paid out because the court concluded that vaccine injury had taken place. Rather, because the court and the client reached a settlement. (You’ll often hear the number of $4 billion being referenced as the amount of money that has been paid out by the vaccine court; this context is helpful in understanding that that number does not represent anything about the validity of the cases or verdicts.)

  • That means out of 3.4 billion doses, 1,299 led to vaccine courts compensating families.

Another important point to consider: it’s impossible to say how many of those cases were caused by an unidentified and underlying immune deficiency. Roughly, the odds are 1 in 1 million that you will experience vaccine injury. For context, the chances of being struck by lightning are 1 in 700,000. So - yes. There is a risk in getting vaccinated. But it’s very, very small. For further interesting reading, the New York Times just published a piece on this topic.

Overwhelming a child’s immune system. This was a really interesting and important set of facts that I came to understand. Babies are exposed to hundreds of antigens from the second they’re born, which means they’re perfectly capable of handling the immune response triggered by vaccine antigens. However, a child’s immune system is NOT strong enough to withstand an infectious disease, which is why they’re vaccinated so early for things like measles. For a deeper understanding of how scientists have combined vaccines to make them more effective and even safer, this article is a great read.

Fear of autism caused by vaccines. The idea that the MMR vaccine (or any other vaccine) causes autism has been definitively and roundly debunked. Andrew Wakefield, the former MD who alleged that there was a link between vaccines and autism, has been stripped of his medical license and the study he published has been discredited for a number of reasons (both scientific and ethical). Interestingly, Andrew Wakefield is also the person who directed and starred in the popular anti-vaxx documentary, Vaxxed. (The not-so-subtle subtext I’m trying to get across here is that Vaxxed was created by a man who’s had his medical license revoked, so the material in it is questionable.)

Lack of clarity about ingredients; concerns about “heavy metals” or aluminum. The most helpful piece I found here is this great article that breaks down exactly what’s in a vaccine and how vaccines are made. I won’t even try to paraphrase it here - she says it best.

For parents concerned about thimerosal, From Dr. Jones: “Some vaccines did contain thimerosal, a mercury salt, but that's like saying that table salt = chlorine gas. Basic chemistry demonstrates that compounds have different properties than the elements from which they come. And thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines almost a generation ago. It is present in some multi-dose flu vaccines but one can ask for those to be thimerosal-free, and it has never been demonstrated to have caused any harm. Aluminum is not a heavy metal, and again, is in the form of salts and not metallic aluminum in vaccines.”

From Dr. Brown: “Aluminum is not a heavy metal. Aluminum is used in vaccines as an adjuvant – meaning a substance that is added to vaccines that stimulates a stronger immune response.  There is no aluminum in any live vaccines, including MMR. Aluminum is naturally present in the environment. There is normally a very small amount of aluminum in (the) human body.  The amount used in vaccines is so small that it does not make an impact on the total.”

From Dr. Hotez, when asked, “What’s in a vaccine?”: “Liquid, like saline or saltwater plus antigens.”

Ethical issues about aborted fetal cells being used:

From Dr. Brown: “No, there are no fetal cells in the vaccines. Viruses require human cells to grow in the lab, and some grow better in fetal cells. Also, fetal cells divide well, which means that they can be preserved long term to grow the vaccine virus – because every batch you make you need to make it the same way.  The original fetal cells which were used in vaccine development came from elective pregnancy terminations. These cells have resulted in medical products that have saved the lives of millions of people.”

From Dr. Jones: “Many viruses can only be grown in human cells, so fetal cells are the best way to grow these. The cells are removed during processing--think of it like the dirt in which we grow carrots or potatoes. Even religious bodies have demonstrated that they are fine with these types of cells, though of course would prefer an alternative (that does not currently exist).”

In response to information cited by RFK Jr. and Children’s Health Defense, particularly the data about “wild measles” being preferable to the MMR vaccine:

From Dr. Jones: “There is just no evidence to support what he claims. We know wild measles is associated with deaths in around 1-2 per 1000, encephalitis, pneumonia, and years of immune amnesia, not to mention the chance of SSPE which is universally fatal and horrific. Yes, there was a clinical trial that showed measles eliminated cancer in *one patient*--but they gave her a megadose of a *genetically-modified measles vaccine*, not the wild virus. There also is one epidemiological study that suggested fevers from measles is protective against later cancers but it's pretty poorly done and doesn't have other support (it has not been repeated or supported by other investigators).”

Vaccine shedding and questions about herd immunity.

The concept of vaccine shedding simply means that for a few days after a person receives a vaccine, they threaten to expose immunocompromised people around them to the diseases for which they were vaccinated. In the end, this concept is one that doesn’t hold water. This article was recommended to me by Dr. Jones and does a great job of addressing that concern, even including a tweet from Johns Hopkins stating specifically that it’s okay for recently vaccinated children to visit immunocompromised patients in their hospital.

Herd immunity is a simple enough concept: vaccinated people (or people who have naturally encountered and survived a germ or disease) protect immunocompromised people from contracting a particular disease. It’s important for exactly that reason - there are lots of people who are vulnerable. (think: children who are too young, chronically ill people, and people who can’t be vaccinated for a specific medical reason) and rely on the rest of us to vaccinate ourselves in order to protest them.

For herd immunity to be effective, a certain percentage of the population has to be vaccinated against or immune to a disease (and it’s different for every disease - measles, for example, requires 92-95% of the population to be immune to keep from spreading. An important note here is that an outbreak can still occur, but it can’t spread if effective herd immunity is in play.) Obviously, in many cases in the U.S., there’s low herd immunity because so many unvaccinated people have contracted measles. Here’s a great piece on Mental Floss that does a deep-dive into the hard math behind how herd immunity works, how diseases spread and at what rate, and why diseases seem to “favor” children.

The TLDR version of this is: vaccine shedding does not pose a threat to the immunocompromised; herd immunity effectively prevents immunocompromised people from contracting contagious and potentially fatal diseases.

My personal takeaways:

  • The anti-vaccination lobby is extremely powerful, and has done a truly remarkable job of making it a challenge to find clear, scientific data about vaccines online. I am now quite clear on why so many people have deeply held opinions that they feel are based in science, but are actually based on misinformation.

    1. The anti-vaccination lobby is also a bit of a mystery. I still have big questions: who’s backing it? Where is all the money coming from? What’s the ultimate goal?

  • There are some things that are black and white - easy to understand and digest. For example: vaccines do not cause autism. Full stop.

  • There are other pieces of the puzzle that take a lot of digging to understand. For example: the truth behind vaccine injury and whether the number $4 billion in payouts is accurate. It’s frustrating to me that this information is so misrepresented and has confused or misled so many people. It shouldn’t take hours of reading to figure out the truth.

  • I understand that time is always pressed at the doctor’s office, but I would love it if it was possible for vaccine education to begin as early as prenatal visits. The pressure parents feel at the pediatrician to just say, “Okay - whatever you think is best!” is heavy, especially for first-time parents. Having the space to talk through and ask any questions you might have is essential to eliminating misinformation and fear around vaccinations, and I think that’s a huge area for growth in our system. (A caveat here that I love our pediatrician, who always gives us time to ask questions. Shout out to Dr. Templeton!)

  • I understand why people are suspicious of Big Pharma. No need to elaborate. It just makes sense to me.

  • It is not only unkind, but unhelpful to assume that people who choose not to vaccinate are ignorant about risks, research, or data. At least in the conversations I’ve had, these parents are dutiful, involved, and extremely caring. If you’re curious or concerned, opening up a conversation can be helpful and informative for everyone.

Okay, folks. That’s it. I ask for your grace and understanding in reading and processing all this, welcome your questions, and am grateful for your time. Hopefully you’re leaving this post with a few more tools in your belt so that you can engage one another in conversation about this stuff. It’s been a fascinating journey for me.

Over and out.

There’s Always Been a Rainbow Hangin’ Over Your Head.

Last week, we delved into biblical rationale defending homosexuality and the church. This week, it gets personal.

I never thought homosexuality was a sin, and because I was brought up in a climate that believed that very fervently, I bucked against the idea pretty hard. My theology was lazy. I didn’t do a good job formulating my arguments. Instead, I relied on the old classic, “God is love, God loves everybody. I think God has bigger fish to fry than worrying about who we’re sleeping with,” or some version of that. You can read more about my beliefs and my grown-up reasonings here. 

 A few weeks ago, the United Methodist Church got together at General Conference to decide whether or not it was going to double down on its stance about gay people and their dealings with the church, which you can read more about here. Ultimately, their decision was that the opinions they’d already held were the right ones. Not everyone felt this way, but enough people did. 

Apart from my biblical reasonings, I wanted to talk about this as someone who is both a person of faith who believes in the important of scripture AND a person who is very close friends with a lot of gay people.  

And y’all, I honestly don’t know where to start. There’s a lot on my heart. So here are a whole lot of things from all the corners of my brain. Which I guess I can do, since it’s my blog. A warning that you are going to get non-sequitur whiplash!

The first time I ever knowingly met a gay man was when I was 10 or 11 years old. My parents were close to a man and his partner and they invited us for dinner at their house. My younger brother Parker was 7 or 8, and as we sat around the table eating cheeseburgers, he put down his food, looked up, and  asked, “So, are you guys related, or what?” 

He was trying to make sense out of why two grown men lived together.  

The men looked at my parents, at each other, and then one of them answered, “No, but people do say we look alike!”  

That satisfied my brother completely and we all went back to eating. It wasn’t awkward at all - we just kept on trucking.  

Later that week, on our way home from school (we were without Parker, so I felt comfortable talking more candidly with my mom), I asked, “Are ______ and _______  gay?”  

She asked me why I thought that might be true. And I told her it just seemed like that might be the case since they lived together and neither one was married to a woman. So she told me that they were.  

I remember that my first reaction was to feel a little shame creep through my chest. It was totally involuntary, and was probably the result of growing up the Deep South where homosexuality was very taboo and certainly not accepted socially or in church. It almost felt like I knew something I shouldn’t know; like I had walked in on someone naked. That shame had nothing to do with the way I was brought up, which was in a house where, even in the South, all people and all lifestyles were treated and discussed equally and fairly. I don’t feel that shame now, but that experience showed me that even if you aren’t aware you’re carrying it, shame is a powerful thing.

Over the next ten years, I would become even more deeply involved in my church, First United Methodist in Decatur, Alabama. I was a regular part of the Council on Youth Ministry and attended Annual Conference as a delegate. I went to Camp Sumatanga every time the doors were open and to this day cite it as a cornerstone of my spiritual and social belief system. I was borderline constantly surrounded by gay men, whether it was younger friends at Camp, older friends in the CoYM, men from church, or kids at school who would eventually come out as gay. Gay men have been a part of who I am for as long as I can remember. 

— 

For some of you reading, gay men and women may seem very foreign. What you know of them is what you’ve seen represented in movies and on TV, but you don’t know them personally, and because of that, all you can go by are the stereotypes you’ve been exposed to: gay men are promiscuous, girly, fashion-obsessed, over-the-top scream queens; lesbians are butch-y, masculine, and wear sensible shoes. 

But the real men and women who live their lives identifying as LGBTQIA are much more complex than those old tropes. These are individuals, no two stories alike. They’re academics, they’re coaches, politicians, doctors, teachers, librarians, choir directors, realtors, stay-at-home parents. They’re around you every day whether you see them or not. US Weekly could do a segment on them: “Gay people - They’re Just Like Us!” Maybe the key to de-mystifying the topic is to simply get to know the gay men and women in our lives.

There’s always room in our hearts to un-learn the things we thought we knew for certain.

— 

When I worked for Teach For America in Memphis in 2014, our manager led weekly check-ins. There were 7 or 8 of us on our team, with diverse sexual orientations, races, and ages, from all different places in the United States. Our manager asked that for the first 15 minutes of our weekly meetings, we rotate around the group and allow each person to bring in what he called an “artifact,” or something that represented our lives.  

On the week I was supposed to share, I remember walking around my room in Memphis for a long time deciding what to choose. I ultimately went with a stole that used to be my dad’s when he was an associate pastor at the church where I grew up.  

When I put it on the table that Friday morning, I felt my heart pounding. I said something like this: 

“So this is my dad’s stole, with one color on each side for whatever time of year it was per the liturgical calendar. And to tell you the truth, I’m really nervous to share it with you because of all the things that people who aren’t from the South look at Christianity and think. I feel like you may have a negative association with Christianity based on how you’ve seen it represented on TV or what you’ve read. I feel like I need to qualify right away that I am not a bigot, I don’t hate gay people, I don’t....”  

 ...and on and on I went like that, telling them all the things it DIDN’T mean about me. 

After I felt I had done a decent job telling them what I wasn’t, I went on to say that the Methodist Church has been hugely influential in who I am. All the things I care most deeply about were formed and reinforced by my involvement at church. But I feared my co-workers didn’t know that part of the story. They only knew the scary Christians who frighten everybody to death. 

It was the first time that I had ever acknowledged out loud to them that I was a Christian, and it made me nervous as hell.

We don’t have a particularly good reputation in certain circles. 

 —

Here’s the thing about gay people and the church. The line that’s often repeated to them is that the church “hates the sin,” but “loves the sinner.”

So many Christians who I’ve talked to over the years have compared homosexuality to lying, cheating, or lusting - also things that are identified as sinful, and usually things the person doing the comparing has been guilty of at one point or another. “Homosexuality is equal to all those sins,” it is said, “so I don’t have any judgment about it. I’m a sinner, too. God sees all sins as equal.”  

The trouble with that rationale, for me, is that it never really seems to be true. No one “identifies” as a liar, or chooses a life partner based on the fact that both people are cheaters. These smaller sins, the benign ones that we can admit we’ve been guilty of, don’t seem to equate to the way a person loves.  

I completely understand that using that logic is meant to be generous and open-hearted. It comes from a tender place. The reason this “hate the sin, love the sinner” thing was invented at all was to service a well-intended Christian sentiment, delivered in all sincerity: “I want to be clear that I do not approve. My faith tells me I must communicate my disapproval in order to be true to what I believe, but I will try my hardest to love you fully in spite of the fact that I believe this is wrong.” 

But for gay men and women, the idea that their gayness parallels telling a lie or cheating on an exam doesn’t track. To think that homosexuality is a tendency, one that could be a periodic mistake akin to telling a fib from time to time (as in, “Oops, I accidentally thought that man who I’ve chosen to spend my life with is attractive again!”) seems outlandish to the point of silliness. 

I’m a white woman, so this is the example I’ll use: it would be as if someone from my church approached me to tell me that while they don’t personally support that I’m white, and they never will, they will accept me anyway. That they hate my whiteness, but they can love me in spite of it.

LGBT men and women don’t see their homosexuality as something that can be corrected. It is intrinsic to the fabric of who they are. To “hate the sin” is to hate the person. 

— 

The problem with Christianity is that if we really wanted to follow Jesus - and I mean really, really follow him - it would look so radical that we wouldn’t be able to live our lives “normally.” I am bad at this. I spend lots of time justifying my choices on the ways I’ve chosen not to radically love people on any given day. 

There are a few people I know who understand true Christian living, and their lives do not look like my life. They are constantly, constantly, thinking of and serving others. Their free time is spent tutoring or volunteering at low incomes schools. They recycle any and everything in order to be stewards of God’s creation. They take up donations or collect items for people they overheard in someone’s casual conversation who might be in need. They don’t care about what they’re wearing or who liked their Instagram post. Their eyes are the eyes of God and they see everyone the way God sees them: perfect, equal, precious, worthy.

Let’s say you believe homosexuality is a sin. Let’s say that you can’t get on board, no matter how it’s presented, with the case that it’s not sinful. Okay.

Wouldn’t the radically Christian thing to do be to love the gay person in your life exactly as you’d loved them before they told you they were gay? Because, you know, they were gay. There’s always been a rainbow hanging over their head (thank you, Kacey Musgraves). 

To radically love them (really opening your arms and heart, not polite or “tolerant” love) wouldn’t be a betrayal of your belief - it would be the embodiment of it. 

If a gay man has never looked you up and down and lovingly said, “Sweetie, no,” go back to the starting line and begin again.

—  

There is room for doubt. I think saying, “I don’t know,” is one of the most important things we can do as Christians. No one is supposed to have all the answers. But we are called to be in constant pursuit of those answers, and to follow the Holy Spirit wherever it’s leading. And the Holy Spirit is TRICKY. Constantly up to something. Never still. Leading into places where we don’t want to go. Bending our rules and breaking our hearts. When we said, “Yes,” to Jesus, we might as well have set the roadmap on fire. This life of faith isn’t about having one opinion and one set of reasons for a lifetime, I don’t think - it’s about living into the truth that God shows up where we least expect it. Are we humble enough to say, “I don’t know.”? It’s hard for me.  

— 

I was watching an episode of Queer Eye the other day. In it, the guys had a conversation with a young, black, lesbian woman who was finding her footing. They talked about how a person’s “chosen” family can end up being the most meaningful. This young woman’s parents had thrown her out of the house - literally told her never to come back - after she’d been outed as a lesbian by someone else, and the guys were trying to explain that she can build her own family made up of people who love and support her.

While I was watching this episode, my 15-month-old son, Mac, was playing in the floor with his race cars. His tiny hands were turning the cars over and over again, his fat little legs were carrying him from one end of the room to the other chasing after them. His laugh bounced off the walls as our dog tried, unsuccessfully, to escape from the car onslaught. This baby, who I carried in my body, who is beautiful and perfect in all the ways that matter. I imagined this young woman as a baby Mac’s age; the pride and wonder her parents must have felt when they looked at her. And how somewhere along the way, they pledged allegiance to a set of beliefs that had them reject, or at the very least, hold at arm’s length, their own precious baby.

Before long, big, hot tears were welling in my eyes. I imagined Mac coming to me years from now to tell me that he’s gay. I imagined the party I would throw in our tiny conversation; the leaps of joy from the deepest parts of my heart. If we’re destined for that talk, I thought as I watched him, then he’s gay right now. It makes absolutely no difference to me. My job as his mom is to love and support and celebrate. To guide and provide bumpers when I need to. To have him see my eyes light up every time he walks into a room, just like my mother did for me. Just like Maya Angelou said we’re supposed to as parents. He’s the family I was given and will always be the family that I choose.

— 

Between the years of 2004 and 2018, five of my close male friends came out to me. 

The first time a friend came out to me in high school, I told him I’d always known. He knew I knew. We hugged and celebrated, and it was a beautiful moment.  

The second time a friend came out to me in high school, he sat on the couch in the upstairs of my parents’ house in Decatur. He was shaking with nerves and choked out the words. He told he he’d kissed a guy for the first time that weekend and was so racked with guilt and shame that he immediately threw up. I tried to make him laugh and squeezed him tight. 

I wish I could tell you I had perfect responses for these guys. I didn’t. I felt nervous and was trying so very hard to say the right thing, just in case my words were the only affirming ones they heard. 

Last year, I got a phone call from a very close friend of mine who I’d always thought might be gay. He confirmed what I’d long suspected. Even though we were states away from each other, I felt like I was hugging him through the phone. I full-throat sobbed with relief at the knowledge that my worst fears for him - that he’d never fully embrace this part of him and live a life that wasn’t authentic - were assuaged. He is now an even more perfect specimen than he was before, which is saying something. These days, when I hold his hand, I am totally electrified by him. It’s like standing near a firework and having a spark land on your skin. That’s how powerful it is to watch someone be who they are.   

Multicolored and beautiful.  

Dazzling. 

I hope, whoever and wherever you are, you have the chance to bask in the glow of just such a person. 

Because WOW.