Category Archives: Parenting

Distress in Disneyland

Posted on by
Reply
Disney LGBTQ uprising
Is Disney clear on who is its target audience?

March 25, 2022 – You probably heard about a Disney employee walkout a few days ago. You probably didn’t hear from Disney employees on the other side of the issue. So, I’m going to publish their statement below. I think it’s worth reading as it presents a reasonable solution for corporations experiencing pressure to support an ideological agenda.

The protesters felt that Disney’s CEO is not doing enough on behalf of the LGBTQ cause. According to NBC News, “dozens” of employees staged a walkout in Burbank, and at other locations. Others spoke out in interviews and on social media.

When asked for his opinion on the protest, Disney star Oscar Isaac said,
“I guess my comment would be [starts singing] gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gayyyyyy! Yeah, it’s an absolutely ridiculous law. It’s insane. It’s insanity. And I hope that Disney as a company comes out as forcefully as possible against this idea. It’s astounding that it even exists in this country.”

Isaac and the protesters are reacting to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill, nicknamed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by LGBTQ activists. The bill, recently signed by governor DeSantis, prohibits “classroom instruction” of gender ideology in public schools K thru 3rd grade.

That doesn’t strike me as insane, given how wildly diverse opinions now are around the topic of human sexuality. This diversity of opinion stems from differing worldviews. Parents do indeed have a responsibility to exercise caution around who they trust to influence their children on a topic as fundamental and consequential as sex. It seems right to give small children a few years to learn the alphabet and have a childhood before hitting them with sexual identity issues that many adults apparently can’t figure out.

But what’s a corporation to do?

Maybe it would be good for corporations to stay out of the epistemology business. Can board members be split over whether or not to support a given ideological campaign, or must a corporation be an ideological monolith? Do we now want corporations to publish their statement of beliefs so we can know whether or not to work for them, or buy from them? Should we continue dividing America up into those who agree with us (the sane) and those who don’t (the insane)?

Maybe corporations should simply provide whatever goods or services they offer, without being pressured to participate in partisan politics. I’d like to know that they follow ethical practices and treat their employees fairly, but I don’t want to have to care about their politics. Except I wish they’d stop buckling to extremist ideologues.

At any rate, below is the published letter by another Disney minority:

Disney Employees’ Open Letter in Favor of a Politically Neutral Disney

As employees of the Walt Disney Company, we believe in the dignity of all people. This is why we do what we do. We write stories. We make costumes. We act in parades. We run cruises. We stream movies. We make magic. We do this because our work contributes to a fountain of wonder that inspires joy, awe, and delight in guests and audiences of all ages. We are proud employees of the Walt Disney Company. We love our jobs because we get to share the wonder of life and human experience with millions of people worldwide.

However, over the last few years, one group of cast members has become invisible within the company. The Walt Disney Company has come to be an increasingly uncomfortable place to work for those of us whose political and religious views are not explicitly progressive. We watch quietly as our beliefs come under attack from our own employer, and we frequently see those who share our opinions condemned as villains by our own leadership.

The company’s evolving response to the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” legislation in Florida has left many of us wondering what place we have in a company actively promoting a political agenda so far removed from our own. TWDC leadership frequently communicates its commitment to creating an inclusive workplace where cast members feel comfortable sharing their perspectives and being their authentic selves at work. That is not our workplace experience.

Over the last few weeks, we have watched as our leadership has expressed their condemnation for laws and policies we support. We have watched as our colleagues, convinced that no one in the company could possibly disagree with them, grow increasingly aggressive in their demands. They insist that TWDC take a strong stance on not only this issue but other legislation and openly advocate for the punishment of employees who disagree with them.

An internal poll within the company went out a few months ago asking us if we felt accepted in the company. Many of us didn’t complete it because the nature of the questions made us worry that the results of the poll could be used to target us for quietly holding a position that runs against the progressive orthodoxy that Disney seems to promote. TWDC has fostered an environment of fear that any employee who does not toe the line will be exposed and dismissed.

Much has been made of our internal efforts to Reimagine Tomorrow, but as much as diversity and inclusion are promoted, the tomorrow being reimagined doesn’t seem to have much room for religious or political conservatives within the company. Left-leaning cast members are free to promote their agenda and organize on company time using company resources. They call their fellow employees “bigots” and pressure TWDC to use corporate influence to further their left-wing legislative goals.

Meanwhile, those of us who don’t align with this vision keep our heads down and do our work without bringing our personal beliefs into the workplace. We’ve done this without complaint because we don’t want to rock the boat, but the boat is being rocked, and our leadership seems compelled to reward those who are rocking it.

Employees who want TWDC to make left-wing political statements are encouraged, while those of us who want the company to remain neutral can say so only in a whisper out of fear of professional retaliation. The company we love seems to think we don’t exist or don’t belong here. This politicization of our corporate culture is damaging morale and causing many of us to feel our days with TWDC might be numbered.

Furthermore, as this politicization makes its way into our content and public messaging, our more conservative customers will feel similarly unwanted. You can only preach at or vilify your audience for so long before they decide to spend their money elsewhere.

Working for The Walt Disney Company is a dream come true. We love being part of creating the magic that so many people around the world enjoy. Our storytelling is second to none. It resonates with people from all walks of life across the political spectrum. Our parks are the source of joy and inspiration that Walt hoped they would become. Every year, millions of guests escape an increasingly divided world to a place where they can relive fond memories of the past and savor the challenge and promise of the future. They do this alongside thousands of other guests that might not have anything in common with them other than a shared love of Disney.

The unique brand of family entertainment that Disney is known for is an objective good in this dark world. It brings people together and provides cultural touchpoints that even the worst enemies can unite over. At the height of COVID lockdowns in the Summer of 2020 when the country was fiercely divided over a range of issues, Hamilton provided us something to collectively celebrate. At the end of an incredibly contentious election year, The Mandalorian was there to soothe a weary nation with non-political entertainment we could all enjoy no matter who you voted for. When Disney takes sides in political debates, they deprive the world of a shared love we all have in common. TWDC is uniquely situated to provide experiences and entertainment that can bridge our national divide and bring us all together.

CEO, Bob Chapek had the right idea in his original statement that he has since walked back. In Chapek’s own words, “As we have seen time and again, corporate statements do very little to change outcomes or minds. … Instead, they are often weaponized by one side or the other to further divide and inflame.” Disney is far more important and impactful to the world by avoiding politics than it will ever be by embracing a political agenda. By focusing on entertainment that inspires us with stories of universal appeal, we are doing good in the world.

Disney shouldn’t be a vehicle for one demographic’s political activism. It’s so much bigger and more important than that. More than ever, the world needs things that we can unite around. That’s the most valuable role The Walt Disney Company could play in the world at this time. It’s a role we’ve played for nearly a century, and it would be a shame to throw all of that away in the face of left-wing political pressure. Please don’t let Disney become just another thing we divide over.

What do you think? Is it possible for corporations to be politically neutral?

Going Forward, One Word Should Be Part of Any Discussion on Sex and Gender

Posted on by
2

I won’t make you wait for it. The word is Transhumanism.

This is a revolution that no one is talking about. Where are the news media and where are the “experts” on this? We should be having a national discussion around whether we even want to be on board with the dubious idea of transhumanism, and, for those who do, how they should cautiously proceed. Instead we are barreling down the transhuman highway with the windshield painted fuchsia.

What is Transhumanism? (Abbreviated as H+)
Transhumanism is a philosophical movement opining that we can and should overcome the natural biological limitations of humanity by means of science and technology. Some transhumanists envision enhancing human longevity and cognitive abilities to the degree that humans become “posthuman” creatures.

H+ stems from an evolutionary worldview. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, if one believes in a mindlessly and accidentally evolved universe, that we should intelligently direct the course of our own evolution now that we have the means to do so.

Here’s an illustrative quote from one transhumanist:

We believe it is our basic human right to be able to upgrade ourselves, and to develop and leverage the fundamental technologies that enable the next phase of evolution. We believe the future of the human race will not only allow us to opt out of nature’s selective processes and choose our own evolutionary paths, but that our very survival as a species depends on it. These beliefs are the cornerstone of Transhumanism. (Amal DT Graffstra).

To clarify, H+ is not the use of science and technology to restore the body’s natural functions or to facilitate healing. That is the role of traditional medical science. Nor is H+ the use of technology to restore disfigurement, or even to enhance one’s physical attractiveness. That is the role plastic/cosmetic surgery. Rather H+ seeks to transcend our natural human limitations and engineer an improved humanity.

The issue here is not science vs anti-science. The issue at hand is around what should be the legitimate role of science and technology.

Transhumanism is already here
My guess is that most people don’t recognize the revolution for what it is because, if we’ve thought about it at all, we think of transhumanism as a futuristic, sci-fi fantasy. And it’s true that we aren’t yet capable of brain-machine interfaces, or mastering the aging process. But there is a sub-category of transhumanism that is not waiting for the future. That sub-category is called postgenderism.

Postgenderism seeks to use science and technology to create a world where human beings are free from the “harmful constraints” of the traditional binary concept of gender:

Postgenderism is an extrapolation of ways that technology is eroding the biological, psychological and social role of gender, and an argument for why the erosion of binary gender will be liberatory. Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and reproductive technologies… Assisted reproduction will make it possible for individuals of any sex to reproduce in any combinations they choose, with or without “mothers” and “fathers,” and artificial wombs will make biological wombs unnecessary for reproduction… Postgenderists do not call for the end of all gender traits, or universal androgyny, but rather that those traits become a matter of choice…
(Beyond the Gender Binary, Dvorsky and Hughes, 2008).

Notice that like H+, and as a sub-category of H+, postgenderism:
1) is a utopian endeavor,
2) seeks to override or transcend natural human limitations.
3) employs science and technology to carry out its aims

To be charitable, H+ and it offshoot, postgenderism, hope to improve the human condition and relieve human suffering, including “psychic suffering”. But the crucial question is, “Does it, can it, and will it deliver?” I think we have reason to be very concerned about the answer.

From the standpoint of a biblical worldview, the fundamental problems with the human condition are beyond that which science and technology can fix. It is indicative of human arrogance to assume we can improve upon our natural humanity through technological means.

Present day examples of H+/postgenderism
If it seems like a stretch to believe that H+/postgenderism is here, think about what is routinely happening today in the field of human sexuality.  I should state that I am not a medical professional of any stripe, but as a layman, three current examples with which we are all now familiar come to mind:

1) Abortion-on-demand – Consider this through the lens of postgenderism. Abortion-on-demand is now non-negotiable for modern feminism because, to the feminist mind, human biology renders men and women “unequal.” The possibility of abortion access erases the inequity that nature imposes upon women, thus making gender at least somewhat less relevant. In the feminist mind, without abortion, natural female biology is seen as a form of slavery; a social injustice; a limit on female autonomy. If planning and/or contraception fail, abortion allows women to overcome their biological limitations – thus abortion qualifies as a crude H+ half measure until the development of the artificial womb.

Note that elective abortion falls outside the parameters of healing medicine: pregnancy is not a disease. A developing embryo is not an invasive parasite. A fetus is not a tumor. Elective abortion exists in America for ideological reasons. For the immediate future, the cutting edge of the abortion industry seeks a “safe” abortive chemical solution, making abortion access less dependent on invasive surgical procedures and more widely available.

2) Hormone therapy and puberty blocking drugs – Researchers have learned some of the mechanics of how hormones work, and why males and females develop the way they do. We can now appropriate technology to artificially delay puberty, and to alter the body’s natural processes to create secondary sexual features like facial hair and breasts. Transgender individuals are appropriating this technology to bring their bodies into alignment with their psychical identity.

Whether or not this is a good idea is another conversation. My point here is that it is undeniable that such chemical therapy is now commonplace, and it falls squarely under the agendas of H+/postgenderism – it is the use of science and technology to transcend one’s natural physiology for conceptual reasons.

3) Sex reassignment surgery – Surgically altering healthy, functioning sex organs is an extreme procedure from which there is no going back, practically speaking. Doing so for ideological reasons is a clear example of H+/postgenderist practice.

In my non-expert opinion, I would concede that there are a number of developmental sexual abnormalities for which such therapy and surgeries would arguably constitute a legit medical fix. But for purposes of this discussion it is the H+/postgender vision of a society where gender is considered to be a fluid, non-binary, matter of choice for everyone, including children, that I’m concerned with.

Why does this matter for you?
Progressive ideologues are  imposing H+/postgenderism onto the culture under the guise of justice and equality. We are told that the changes around gender ideology are simply the next, inevitable stage of the civil rights movement. So compassionate people cannot disagree with what is happening. You want to be a compassionate person, don’t you? This is all about minimizing suffering.

Perhaps this all seems to have come from out of nowhere to you. Like an accidental explosion at the cotton candy factory, sending sticky wisps of rainbow-colored spun sugar down on us all. What I would like the reader to consider is that these societal changes have been inspired by “progressive” political ideology, and they have been in the making for decades. One can map the progress.

I am unequivocally on board with compassion, fairness, equality, and minimizing suffering, but the changes stemming from gender ideology are not some inevitable next stage in social progress based on scientifically informed reason. They are changes stemming from the opinions of ideologically driven activists. No one should feel pressure to get on board.

This is about authority
The point of this article is not so much to convince those with whom I disagree of the rightness of my position. My point is to amplify the logical consequences of two differing worldviews in the interest of enabling people to make informed choices.

This is ultimately about authority. Transhumanism and postgenderism stem from a specific set of beliefs about the universe. If one believes that we exist as a result of purposeless, accidental, evolutionary processes, then natural law and human biology carry little weight. They simply exist, for no authoritative reason. We are free to take control of the reigns and to direct our destiny as we see fit. On paper, at least, there is little to prevent us from creating our own reality.

But a lot of ideas sound good on paper. Car alarms and self-flushing toilets, for example. Nevertheless, whether we like it or not, human brokenness always gets in the way of utopia in this present age.

By contrast, followers of Jesus embrace a different set of beliefs about the universe. We believe that objective, divine authority actually exists; that it always has, and it always will. The gospel of Matthew quotes Jesus’s last statement to His disciples:

“All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me…”

That’s an extravagantly bold statement coming from a figure who is universally regarded as being a good teacher. Followers of Jesus are bound to believe it. Jesus and His disciples also made definitive statements about gender, marriage, family, the innate value of human life, and the unreliability of the human heart. These statements are simply not compatible with H+/postgenderism.

An “upgrade” for humanity is indeed coming, but according to Jesus and His disciples it will come from the Author of Life, not from our own H+ biohacking. In the meantime, in this age, it seems clear to me that we don’t have all the information, and that therefore, apart from revelation, we often don’t know what’s best for ourselves and for each other.

If you’re a liberal, you might object that your beliefs have nothing to do with an H+/postgenderist agenda. You might argue that you believe in an infinite spectrum of genders for reasons of fairness; that  “gender is what’s between your ears” is the more compassionate position; that you believe that “what matters is two loving parents, more so than a biological mom and dad” for reasons of inclusivity; that you support abortion-on-demand in support of “reproductive freedom” for women, and so on.

However, those reasons notwithstanding, one is still embracing T+/postgenderist thinking if one is favorable to the use of technology to transcend our natural human limitations. One is establishing oneself (or humanity) as the ultimate authority in defining and determining enlightenment, morality, and salvation. A line from The Humanist Manifesto ll comes to mind, published in 1973, the year of the Roe v Wade decision:

“No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”

So how do we live together?
This is a fascinating time to be alive. The choices before us couldn’t be more consequential. The consequences of choosing wrongly couldn’t be more perilous, from the standpoint of both worldviews. And yet, it is essential that we all live together peaceably and respectfully. How can we do this, given this extreme disparity of belief?

I contend that as Americans, we can still unite around the practice of pluralism and freedom for all within the constraints of the US Constitution. That includes free speech, a free press, religious liberty, and respecting parents’ rights to raise their own children as they see fit. All sides must be on guard against totalitarian thinking. All sides must be on guard against magical thinking. Amongst those with whom we agree, it would make the world a better place if we would hold each other to a standard of honesty, compassion, and respect for the individual.

I welcome your thoughts in the comment section.

— Scott Freeman, July 2021

My Top 10 Christmas Movies

Posted on by
5
American Girl Doll Samantha
I admit…one of my favorite Christmas movies is an American Girl Doll movie. Don’t judge me.

At our house we love a good story. One of our Christmas traditions is watching Christmas movies together, beginning right after Thanksgiving. I’ve noticed that if I do this with too many lame Christmas movies it makes me sad and tempts me to hate Christmas. So here are 10 that I can look forward to seeing during the season.

Here’s my criterion for the Top 10:
My personality requires that a Christmas movie be meaningful to me in some way. If it’s only about Santa Claus, or people singing and dancing, or Christmas for the sake of Christmas, that doesn’t quite do it for me. (Even though I like to watch Elf every year because the idea of a human raised in elf culture is pretty hilarious, Elf didn’t quite make the cut).

Also, since we like to watch movies as a family I wanted to make the list kid friendly. I believe these ten movies are. I hope I’m not forgetting anything. I’ve made note of possible exceptions at the end of some descriptions. (I like the idea of making Green Book a Christmas movie, for example, but it has some thematic elements that don’t fit well with small kids, so it didn’t make the cut ).

10 – Little House on the Prairie – The Christmas They Never Forgot
I haven’t actually seen this movie for a couple of decades because we only have it on VHS, but I think I really like it. The entire Ingalls family and a friend get snowed in by a Christmas Eve blizzard. They decide to pass the time by sitting around the fire and sharing stories of their favorite past Christmases. Almanzo’s story is the only one I remember, but it’s pretty great. Also, Hester Sue tells her story of what Christmas was like for her as a slave child.

9 – Prancer
A beautifully filmed movie about very average people in a small town. Sam Elliott plays a prickly widower struggling to raise his 2 kids. His spunky and mildly annoying daughter has a Christmassy secret that becomes public in hilarious fashion. This leads to the father having an emotional epiphany of his own, leading him to reexamine his priorities and rejoin the land of the living. The characters are wonderfully cast in this film.

8 – Miracle On 34th Street
In contrast to Prancer, this is a beautifully filmed movie about a beautiful couple in NYC. While the movie revolves around a charming Kris Kringle character (Richard Attenborough), the movie is really about the struggle between good and evil, belief and distrust, within each of us. While I might disagree philosophically with a few ideas, the bottom line is that it’s a visually lovely Christmas movie that is enjoyable to watch.

7 – The Bishop’s Wife
I haven’t seen the 1996 remake, so I can’t make a comparison, but I can’t imagine why this movie needed to be remade. In this 1947 black and white film, Cary Grant plays an angel sent to help a Bishop get his priorities straight, (though that’s not why the Bishop thinks he’s been sent a helper). The emotional affair between the angel and the Bishop’s wife has always made me a little uncomfortable, but the writers manage to erase the discomfort by the end of this amusing story.

6 – Christmas Eve
The newest movie on my list (2015), we watched this for the first time a couple of years ago, mostly because of the cast: Patrick Stewart, Jon Heder (Napoleon Dynamite), James Roday (Shawn from Psych), to name a few. It’s a psychologically fascinating idea. Basically, an entire section of NYC loses power on Christmas Eve, trapping various groups of people in 6 different elevators throughout the city. It’s kind of an exercise in imagining what would happen if you were forced to move beyond the surface with people you would ordinarily pass by. (For instance, a guy who just got fired on Christmas Eve gets stuck on an elevator with the manager who fired him). The entire movie consists of following these wildly diverse groups as they interact throughout the evening, resulting in some alternately amusing and profound moments.

5 – The Nativity Story
After all, the birth of Jesus is the reason we have a holiday called Christmas, so every season I want to see a movie telling that story. This is the best one I’ve seen. I love that the characters look middle-eastern (because they are). And yet, despite their quest for authenticity, the producers fail to comply with the biblical narrative at a couple of points. Nonetheless there are many powerful and beautiful moments. For me it is most moving to watch the awkwardness of Mary and Joseph’s divinely-created predicament being played out in a palpably human manner. Visually this film is exceptional.

Note: there are a couple of violent (but not terribly graphic) scenes having to do with Roman soldiers, which some kids might find disturbing.

4 – A Christmas Carol (George C. Scott version – 2009?)
These last 4 are difficult to rate. Perhaps I only rank this at number 4 because of its familiarity, and I want end with a couple of movies you probably haven’t seen. For me A Christmas Carol may be the quintessential Christmas story. I LOVE the story of Mr. Scrooge’s repentance and joyful embrace of becoming a man who “knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge.” I like this particular version because of its beautiful filming and clarity. (Apparently there are over 8 movie versions of this story). I also have the1951 classic version starring Alastair Sim as Scrooge. It has its superior aspects, but overall I find it sometimes difficult to watch and understand.

Note: some children might find Marley and some of the Christmas spirits frightening.

3 – It’s A Wonderful Life
These last 3 are probably a 3 way tie. Love this story. Love the characters. Love the self-sacrifice of George Bailey, reluctant though it may be at times. (Love that too). Love the corniness. Love the dialogue and the quotable lines. Love Clarence, the angel with “the IQ of a rabbit.” Love the valuing of family and community over personal achievement. I suppose this film is similar to A Christmas Carol in that a man is made to assess his life with the help of a supernatural being, and has a change of heart. I guess something about that resonates with our common human experience.

2 – Samantha – An American Girl Holiday
Okay…my guy friends will probably revoke my man-card for listing these last 2 as my favorites, but I don’t care – I love this movie!

Yes, I know this film was probably made as a marketing stratagem to sell more Samantha Parkington dolls and accessories, (hence the stupid title), but it resulted in a great Christmas movie! It actually makes me CRY…there, I said it! But not due to mere sentimentality. The movie is about love, family, friendship, loss, social justice (yes), and how privilege and power could, or should, be used.

I only know about this movie because my wife and I bought it years ago for our daughter who owned a Samantha doll. We have since stolen the DVD back from her. I still can’t believe somebody made a full length movie this good to sell a toy. Don’t knock it ‘til you’ve seen it. Don’t even try to tell me you sat through this and didn’t tear up.

I don’t even know how to summarize without spoiling the movie. I’ll just say the movie is set at the end of the Victorian era, in New York, 1904. Samantha befriends a neighboring immigrant servant girl, and…you should just watch this movie.

1 – A Season For Miracles
Number one of the 3-way tie – a movie nobody has heard of. That’s probably because it’s a Hallmark movie. Elitist types have taught us to smirk at and disdain Hallmark movies. Not unlike the Samantha movie, this one is also a marketing tool. In this case, the movie was made in order to create a positive emotional connection in the viewer’s mind toward Hallmark Cards, Inc. (I know this because I worked at Hallmark as an artist and I once heard the guy in charge of Hallmark movies speak). But I don’t care! I LOVE this movie!! Hooray for ethical capitalism!!!

But about the movie. All I’ll say is this. A devoted aunt rescues her sister’s kids from being put into the foster care system, but she does this pretty much illegally. Things get complicated as she tries to make this work by blending into a small town. She meets a guy, whose attraction to her further complicates things. So it’s a love story, but also a story about trust, poverty and privilege, exclusion and community, and love. All kinds of love. Did I say love? Love is awesome. Always. Good movies about love are the awesomest.

Our family lived in the inner city for a long time. The biological mother (Laura Dern) in this film is scarily spot on. Same with her street smart and not-cute daughter. Pretty gritty stuff for a Hallmark movie. My only complaint is that, as in several of my picks, there is an angel in this movie, which I think the movie could have done better without. But in keeping with Hallmark’s tendency to gild the lily, there she is. I still love this movie. I think you will too.

Share you thoughts
If you check out a movie from this list that is new to you, I’d love for you to come back and share your thoughts in the comment section below. What did you think?

Also, if you would like to recommend your favorite Christmas movie below, I’d love to hear it. I’m always on the watch for good ones.

Merry Christmas!
Scott

“Purity Culture” Hoopla: Comparing Notes

Posted on by
Reply
evangelical purity culture

I don’t know who came up with the phrase “purity culture,” but apparently I, my evangelical church friends, and our children were all part of it.

I guess.

It’s not like I was asked to sign a “purity culture” membership card to keep in my wallet as a parent. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call it a “culture.” I’ve never heard of purity culture cuisine. I’m not aware of any purity culture holidays, art, or burial practices.

Why does everything have to be a culture now, even when it isn’t?

I’ve been reading critics of “purity culture” ever since Joshua Harris came out with his latest in a string of announcements. At age 21 Harris had published I Kissed Dating Goodbye (IKDG), a book advocating an alternative to casual, serial dating. The book became a best seller and was enormously influential in shaping the evangelical and Christian home-school subcultures during the late 90s.

Twenty some years have passed and Harris has now very publicly renounced the central message of his book, announced that he is divorcing his wife of 19 years, and most recently, announced that he is no longer a Christian.

But more troubling, quite a few women who came of age in church youth group “purity culture” are now well into adulthood, and are claiming that “purity culture” damaged them, leaving them to wrestle with shame, fear, anxiety, eating disorders, nasty rashes, sexual dysfunction, inability to recognize sexual abuse, and more.

I’m sincerely puzzled. I was there. What these testimonies typically describe sounds nothing like what I saw. My five kids also grew up in church youth group “purity culture,” and I was a parent leader in our parent-led youth group in a theologically conservative, evangelical church. One of my sons read Harris’s book. One of my daughters went to a True Love Waits conference with a friend. More than one church youth conference or retreat was themed around guy/girl relationships and why casual dating and sex is not a good idea.

Regardless, here are all these testimonies claiming injury from Harris’s book. At first I concluded that, if his critics’ claims are true, Harris is doing evangelicalism a favor by repudiating his book and stopping further publication.

But then I actually read his book.

After hearing the backlash I was surprised that IKDG seemed sensible and sensitively written. I didn’t see any of the legalism or rigidity that I expected to find. Didn’t see any shaming or intimidation.

Then I tried to verify the specific accusations I’d been hearing. For example, here’s a quote from an opinion piece in Huffpost, specifically referring to Harris’s book, (emphasis added):

…Other messages from the book: Girls should be modest and meek. Boys are sexual creatures and if they have impure thoughts about you it is your fault. The body and its desires are to be suppressed at all costs. Harris’ ideas were par for the course in the purity culture that dominated evangelical circles like mine.
– Hannah Brashers, Huffpost Personal

I’ll assume we can all agree that such a message deserves to go down in flames. However, I could not find such a message in IKDG. Following is the closest I could find, from the chapter entitled, Purity. Harris encourages “brothers and sisters in the Lord” to protect each other. He has just addressed the guys, and here he addresses the girls, (emphasis added):

…You may not realize this, but we guys most commonly struggle with our eyes. I think many girls are innocently unaware of the difficulty a guy has in remaining pure when looking at a girl who is dressed immodestly. Now I don’t want to dictate your wardrobe, but honestly speaking, I would be blessed if girls considered more than fashion when shopping for clothes. Yes, guys are responsible for maintaining self control, but you can help by refusing to wear clothing designed to attract attention to your body…I know many girls who would look great in shorter skirts or tighter blouses, and they know it. But they choose to dress modestly. They take the responsibility of guarding their brothers’ eyes. To those women and others like them, I’m grateful…
– Joshua Harris, IKDG, p 99

Is he not humbly asking for help here? Is he not calling for mutual caring?

Why does his critic get it exactly backwards?

Let’s compare more notes
What follows is a rant by a blogger who has left Fundamentalism and wants to help victims of abuse. I’m not including her last name because my point is not to embarrass her. My point in responding here is that “purity culture” was more nuanced than critics want us to believe, and it’s wrong for them to preach that their terrible experiences are representative of all of evangelical subculture:

Katie P: “…Lack of sex education and/or relationship development are unfortunately hallmarks of purity/modesty culture. Purity culture teaches that any type of sexual education or experience outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong and deserving of severe punishment…”

“Severe punishment”? This is news to me. My wife and I taught our kids about sex and reproduction (age appropriately) while they were still elementary school age. We formally went into greater detail before they entered middle school, because we wanted them to hear about sex from us first. From then on we discussed sex, dating, human sexuality, and boy/girl relationships as questions were raised, which they were, often around the dinner table. We still do this as adults.

Katie: “…purity/modesty culture is also called rape culture. Another reason is the severe victim blaming that occurs within this toxic culture…[girls] are taught that their bodies are inherently sinful and tempting and must be covered (modesty) in order not to seduce men…”

Nope. In my lifetime I’ve never heard ANY living, literate, Bible believing person say that girls’ bodies are “inherently sinful.” In fact the Torah states that God personally created the female body and then pronounced it “good!” In evangelicalism, the Bible trumps human opinion – so why did she, or anyone else, say or believe this?

However, I do agree with her that the female form can be “tempting”; not because it’s sinful but because it’s awesome. That’s kind of the point. My wife and I did indeed have modesty talks with our girls. We were intentional about communicating that there is nothing shameful, sinful, or bad about their bodies or about being female. As Harris stated, it is solely on the dudes to control their thoughts and actions. In part, a girl’s choice to dress modestly is to help those of us guys who are actually trying not to objectify women. Many guys aren’t even trying.

Katie: “…Men are taught that they are “visual creatures” who are unable to control their sexual impulses at the sight of a women’s body…”

A revealing criticism. First, dudes do not need to be “taught” this – that we are “visual creatures.” We are this. That’s why there is a multi-billion dollar porn industry – because most guys are enthusiastically able and willing to be sexually aroused by solely visual means. It is girls who, imho, should be taught this about guys, because girls generally do not experience sexual arousal in the same way. My wife and I felt that we would leave our daughters in a naïve and vulnerable position if we didn’t educate them on this biological fact.

Second, regarding male sexual impulses: I’ve read testimonies from women who, due to shame and indoctrination, became unable to think of themselves as sexual beings, causing problems in their marriages as adults. This is sad. This also underscores how boys and girls are different. For most guys, once their pubescent hormones kick in and they find themselves in a world half full of girls, you could no more convince them that they’re not sexual beings than you could convince them that they are the Pope. There are scientifically verifiable reasons for this. “Purity culture” acknowledged them.

Katie: “…Oftentimes in purity culture, women are also given purity rings by their fathers symbolizing their commitment to remain “pure” for their husbands and to obey their father until he gives them to their future husbands.”

Yes, this was a thing. I never did it because I felt it was redundant. Also maybe a little weird. For me. I wouldn’t necessarily fault dads who did it, unless they forced their daughter to sit under a bare light bulb in a concrete cell with no food or water until she signed the pledge. (Which I’m sure evangelicals are being accused of doing, somewhere).

Katie: “…It’s easy to see why purity culture creates such a toxic, unhealthy, dangerous environment sexually, emotionally, and relationally. But for those who are living in this culture, it’s almost impossible to escape. God is used as the ultimate weapon to keep people in line…”

She’s describing cult behavior. Healthy evangelical subculture is not like this.

The youth group my kids came up in did have an informal no-dating policy. It was mostly unspoken, but was certainly articulated at conferences and retreats. During this time my son served as the youth worship leader. Beginning in his sophomore year he also had a steady girlfriend all through high school. No one said anything to him or me about it. No “weaponizing” God to keep him in line. Nothing “toxic” or “dangerous.” He and his girlfriend married after graduating college and have a great relationship today.

I could go on with more examples but I think you get the idea. Many people’s experience with “purity culture” was positive and healthy.

What Made the Difference?
Why did “purity culture” catch on? “Purity culture” gained popularity because Bible-believing parents thought it could be a positive way for the larger subculture to reinforce their values around sex and dating. Joshua Harris’s book became a best seller because he was a young, single guy, articulating what a lot of evangelical parents already believed about love, sex, and dating. They felt a young person saying it would help give the message credibility in the eyes of teens.

There is nothing sinister here. A lot of evangelical parents came to Jesus from out of secular culture and hoped to spare their kids some of the mistakes they had made. Obviously, in the arena of sex and dating, some mistakes come with a big price tag.

Furthermore, there was nothing new about the idea of saving oneself sexually for marriage, or “dating with a purpose,” or generally treating the opposite sex with care and respect. It’s just that this message contradicted the voices of secular education, media, and entertainment. In this sense “purity culture” was a radical alternative message.

Meanwhile, in the minds of many parents, the secular culture’s view of dating and sex is a train wreck. Many parents had been there and found it unenlightening. Secularism promoted a message opposite that of evangelicalism: Sex is no big deal. Sex is merely recreation. Sex is entertainment. Porn can spice up your marriage. There is a world full of people settling for less than God’s design for love, sex, and marriage. Evangelical parents wanted something better for their kids.

So what went wrong?
I suppose the short answer is: sometimes people get stuff wrong. Given a topic as personal, sensitive, and deep as human sexuality, this is not surprising.

Apparently many young people felt motivated by feelings of shame and fear – those are bad motivators. Apparently false or insufficient information was sometimes given. One woman wrote that, for many girls, once they put on the purity ring, that was the end of the discussion. That’s bad parental communication.

I don’t doubt the testimonies of the critics, but I don’t know the solution to the problem. There is a balance to strike when opposing concerns are both based on truth:

  • How do you promote modesty, while also avoiding victim-blaming?
  • How do you promote a positive, feminine body image, while avoiding crass sexualization of the female form?
  • How do you present accurate, comprehensive information about sex and marriage, while avoiding the secularist anything-goes approach?
  • How do you promote saving sex for lifelong, monogamous marriage, without shaming, or promoting legalism?
  • How do you hold up an ideal standard for courtship and marriage, without being formulaic, or marginalizing those who do not conform to that standard?

I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences about “purity culture,” and how the church could do better.

What Revelation Does For Us

Posted on by
Reply

biblical revelation - knowing God's will

I spend a fair amount of time online, perhaps more time than I should, dialoging with atheists and “skeptics” about worldview issues. It’s one of my favorite things in life. It helps me to see outside of my own frame of reference, and to understand my own beliefs better.

It causes me to empathize with those who see things differently than I do, and to take more care in how I present my beliefs. Sometimes it even moves me to change the way I think about an issue.

I’ve been doing this for several years now, and over time I’ve seen how rare it is for anyone on any side of any issue to be logically persuaded into changing his or her beliefs. This is true regardless of how ridiculous those beliefs might be, whether it be belief in a flat earth or a belief that life on our planet accidentally arose from non-living matter. I’ve come to suspect that we humans generally don’t believe things for logical reasons – instead we tend to use logic to justify what we want to believe, at least when it comes to the macro questions.

If one is clever enough, one can justify almost any belief.

To complicate matters, no one gets the luxury of 100% certainty that their worldview presuppositions are true. This is true of both theist and atheist, though atheists/materialists tend to strenuously disagree that their presuppositions rest on faith and dogma. But they do, and it is a simple matter to prove it.

Some recent conversations have set me to thinking about the role of biblical revelation in living a life where decisions proceed from belief. The question of whether or not the Bible actually is God’s revelation to us, and whether it is trustworthy, is another question. For the scope of this brief post let us assume that the answer to that question is “yes.”

Revelation describes the shape of reality
Revelation does many things for us. Perhaps most importantly, it gives us a linear, progressively unfolding story of God’s interaction with humanity throughout history – His “spiritual history” of humanity. As such it reveals and affirms very specific details about God that we could not otherwise know. It gives us an objective standard against which we can correct our misconceptions (2 Tim 3:16). That is immeasurably valuable.

But revelation gives us an even more basic picture. It authoritatively tells us the shape of the reality of our physical world, including our own inner makeup, and also gives us specific social structures that God designed for us. This enables us to have the confidence to pour our lives into the right things.

None of this is as obvious as it might seem. Especially today. For those without this transcendent authority, our already broken world is becoming even more confusing.

What once were considered the most basic facts of life are now being thrown into question. I see intelligent, well-intentioned people who are interested in fairness, justice, and compassion, bobbing like corks in an ocean of rhetoric, falling for unproven ideologies in the name of the fairness and compassion that they seek. Nowhere is this truer than in the issues of sex, gender, marriage, family, and parenting.

I contend that, apart from revelation, we can’t know true and compassionate answers around these questions.

As sex, gender, marriage, family, and parenting are redefined by secular culture, we are all going to have to independently choose what we believe is the compassionate course. Neutral ground is disappearing. Many in this culture will come to the end of their lives to find that they poured their lives into a course that they thought was compassionate, but which turned out to be harmful to children, and thus to the whole society.

Sex, Gender, & Revelation
Let’s see how this works using as an example what was, until very recently, arguably the most basic fact of human sexual reproduction – the concept of male and female. It’s difficult for me to believe that there is a serious movement to blow up this concept, and even more difficult to believe that so many young people are actually buying into it. But here we are.

The new claim is that “sex is what’s between your legs; gender is what’s between your ears.” The idea is that a person may have a perfectly functional male body, but if that person believes himself to be female, then he is in fact female and this is not to be questioned. This is a new idea.

To clarify, I do not dispute that gender dysphoria is a real thing, and I don’t believe it is something a person chooses. There is no question that “trans” people have existed throughout history around the world; sometimes thought of as a “third sex.” But the existence of trans people does not prove that a person can be biologically male, yet female in actuality because he thinks he is. There has been no new scientific discovery proving that such is the case. No one knows for sure what’s going on here. This belief is part of an ideological movement that seeks to establish the idea of gender as a fluid spectrum with an unlimited number of manifestations. (Google Postgenderism).

By contrast, the creation story in the Torah states that God made human beings male and female. Jesus affirmed this idea. Followers of Jesus can therefore have the confidence that this is the shape of reality as God created it. This renders the fact of gender dysphoria to be a manifestation of our broken world; a world which Jesus came to restore to unity in truth. A person whose mind tells them they are the opposite gender from that of their physical body is experiencing a profound separation. We should love such a person no less than we would love anyone with any other type of disability.

Revelation enables us to land on the side of compassionately affirming reality as God intended it. To seek reconciliation and community to every extent possible. To confidently teach and model to our children the truth about God and His creation.

Other matters that matter
There are other foundational truths which secular culture is attempting to obliterate. Revelation enables us to cut through the rhetoric and commit ourselves to a good course. This is critical for parents as we have small people in our care.

By revelation we can be sure that marriage is not merely an artificial cultural construct, but something ordained by God at creation and affirmed by Jesus. Lifelong, sexually exclusive, monogamous marriage between a biologically unrelated adult male and female is God’s design for human flourishing. That doesn’t mean it’s easy or “natural.” That doesn’t mean it always works. But I think it does mean that we’re not free to redefine something that God has clearly defined.

By revelation we can have a working “self-knowledge” regarding what is natural and what is supernatural. In a world that tends to equate what is natural with what is good, we can have clear direction as to what impulses to put down and what impulses to act on. Being born of and led by the Spirit gives us clarity for living life. Revelation affirms for us how that should look. In the brilliance of Gods plan, revelation shows us not a written code to follow, (that was Mosaic Covenant,) but instead offers us the good news of the possibility of internal change.

Finally, by revelation we can be sure that God created us for loving relationship, and that life is about relational unity – first with God, then with others. This helps us to make life decisions and daily choices about where to spend our time. To remember that people are more important than things. To invest in our children yet without making family into an idol. To bother to reconcile broken relationships. To not live in relational isolation from other human beings.

I’m grateful for God’s revelation to us because life can be confusing, and false voices can sound surprisingly convincing. Life will be hard whatever we choose. My hope for all of us is that we may find over time that we didn’t fight and struggle toward a goal for our entire lives only to find that we were fighting against the true shape of reality; that we missed the end for which we were created. May we pour our lives into pursuits that bear fruit for life. May God lead you into life!