Ok. Next thread: Purity culture.
Some say that ‘sexual abstinence outside of marriage' is identical to ‘purity culture’. This is simply not the case. The early church’s revolutionary sex ethic was that sex was only for within a mutual, whole-self-giving, super-consensual 1/8
life-long covenant. Sex is not for people who only give only a part of themselves (the physical, or maybe the emotional), but the whole self to the other—legally, economically, socially, emotionally, spiritually. The Greek word porneia (‘sexual immorality’) was infused with 2/8
new meaning by New Testament writers. It meant any sex outside of marriage. It was based on a radical egalitarian principle that the husband’s body belonged to the wife, and the wife’s to the husband (1 Cor 7:4). That meant that anyone who within marriage exploited or abused 3/8
was violating the Christian sex ethic just as much or more as those who had sex outside of marriage. This ethic replaced the (wrong) Greco-Roman model of sexuality-that men of higher status, even if married, were allowed to demand sex with anyone of lower social status. 4/8
The first laws vs rape & sex without consent grew from this Christian ethic. See Kyle Harper, From Shame to Sin. Since then, every branch of the Christian church-orthodox, Catholic, & Protestant—in every culture and in every century has taught the ethic of sexual abstinence 5/8
outside of marriage. “Purity culture” is a more recent phenomenon in some churches, that originated around the 90s book I Kissed Dating Goodbye. The teaching went far beyond the Christian sex ethic to argue that you should not ‘date’ or even kiss someone unless you were sure 6/8
you were going to marry them. Sexual thoughts, most physical contact, and sex outside marriage were elevated to "unforgivable sins." However, to say sexual abstinence outside of marriage is automatically “purity culture” is at best historically naïve and uninformed 7/8
and at worst deliberately dishonest. They are not the same. Those who are angry at the abuses of purity culture are right to be so. It has done harm and it should be called out and lamented. There is a difference. 8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Lots of people are like, "You aren't reading Foucault (or at least you aren't reading him right), I'm reading him right!" I've been reading him for 40 years, which at least means I've been reading him! 1/4
The modern view says this: look at your desires in order to "discover" yourself. This assumes that a) desires are stable and b) they are the source of your identity. Foucault says desires are (a) unstable and (b) to a degree the product of power relations on you. 2/4
Therefore, you must create your identity—not discover it. Even to see ‘sexual desire’ as a category is being formed by power relations. We can’t totally escape power relations this way, but we can resist them and critique them. So create yourself. 3/4
I've seen over the last 2 weeks lots of criticism and discussion around sexuality. So over the next few days- I’ll give a series of tweet threads that interact with some of the critiques, mainly from the Left.
1. The Therapeutic Self:
1/11
The modern therapeutic self is a recent approach to identity. We are to look within at our desires—especially our sexual ones--and then determine (Freud) or create (Foucault) who we are, not allowing anyone else to validate or define us or make us feel guilty. 2/11
We are then to demand that the world affirm our expression of ourselves. Anyone who questions our self-view is by definition doing violence, questioning our very existence, and denying us agency. But why should we believe and accept this understanding of identity? 3/11
Thread: Because of the more-than-usual antipathy toward my tweet about sex only within marriage, I think some response is warranted. 1st, many disagree with the term ‘dehumanize’. We obviously mean very different things by this term & lots of my critics disagree among themselves.
So I won’t defend my use of the word. It’s not crucial. But much of the pushback is about more substantial issues.
I do need to respect the expressions of anger-because of the background experiences of abuse that may be behind them. Yet here are reasons for the sharp 2/11
conflicts in viewpoints we are seeing:
1. Many of the hostile responses assume a highly western, white, individualistic, therapeutic understanding of the self—in which sexual expression is a key part of authenticity. It is the reason one finds sexual boundaries oppressive. 3/11
No one can prove any moral values to be true—they are in the end all matters of faith. Much of the rage on Twitter is because we are holding others to moral values they don't own and we can't prove. 1/4
Saying "we all know this moral to be true" is not an argument, it's an assertion that can't be proven. Interestingly, the Christian sex ethic has been embraced and practiced by billions of people for centuries across more cultures than any other faith. 2/4
It is agreed upon by all branches of Christianity-orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant. It overturned the older Greco-Roman shame and honor sex ethic that privileged males and the aristocracy. It introduced the idea of consent that many say "we all just know this is true" 3/4
The good things of this world seen as blessings (beauty, power, comfort, success, recognition) but received without God become curses. They will drive you & consume you. And so the most just thing God can do to those who reject him is to give them up to what they want (Ro1:21–25)
However, the hard things of this world seen as curses (weakness, deprivation, loss, and rejection) but received with faith in God will be turned into blessings (2 Corinthians 4:16–17, 12:10). 3/4