by Simon Richiardi
Editorial Comment.
Last week the Church gave to the world the impression that there is only one subject of interest for them to think about and debate – sex and marriage. Surviving Church has taken the view that this topic has received more discussion than it probably deserves. Those who oppose the proposal that same-sex couples should be allowed to receive the Church’s blessing belong to many conservative churches both within and outside the Anglican family of churches. Chief among the arguments opposing these same-sex blessings is the notion that there is a clear ‘biblical’ idea of marriage between one man and one woman. That claim seems doubtful, particularly if we study the Old Testament with its apparent acceptance of concubinage and polygamy. The following contribution from Simon Richiardi helps us to understand the culture of some conservative Christians and the way they view marriage. There is much in the narrative about control. There is a strong adherence to the idea that anything that deviates from a strictly controlled conservative perspective must be resisted. It is also a case study of how carefully selected biblical passages about marriage, to put it mildly, do not always smoothly translate into good practice. Indeed, ‘biblical teaching’ in the hands of an authoritarian pastor may turn out to be the cause of toxic harm. There is much worthy of comment in this piece but I will leave it to my readers to draw from the text what thy feel is salient to the current debates in the wider Church. The account, no doubt, would read very differently if written from the perspective of a woman.
We were the marriage church. Not the church to get married in; it was much better than that. We were the church that did marriage. And although no-one ever said it, the word “properly” floated ghost-like in the air over conversations about marriage. We did marriage properly.
The teaching was this, essentially: Christians shouldn’t date; they should marry. No dating. Just seek God’s will and he will give you a verse or two indicating who your intended is and – boom – instant …. What? Holiness? Being better than other churches?
To give some context, I was a studying at a university in the UK about 20 years ago, and in the Christian Union and attached churches I first came to know Reformed Theology and practice. Phrases like “sound doctrine”, “the flesh” and the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism became part of my mental world. I heard it said that studying liberal theology leaves a scar on the psyche of a Christian; these days I feel the same about Reformed Theology.
I was suffering from mental health problems but being part of an Evangelical world then did not encourage me to seek help outside of that, if, indeed, it was even granted that mental illness existed at all. And if it was conceded that something like these existed, then the answer was, of course, found in Christian books and teachings and not the suspicious philosophies and practices of psychology or counselling. SO, naturally I looked for answers in house as it were.
I came under the influence of an American Pastor (and he was a pastor with a big ‘P’) who led a small, independent Baptist church. He was a charismatic figure, and his life story was dramatic, full of drugs and drama before he became a Christian. As someone who was very unsure of himself, I was drawn to his loud, dramatic style of preaching, alongside the sense of self-assuredness and certainty in his belief in God. Eventually, we became friends and I would say that he “led me to the Lord”, as the saying goes.
But during my second or third year, a particular teaching slowly sneaked its way onto the agenda. Softened up by exposure to American books like I Kissed Dating Goodbye, the church became obsessed – and I think obsessed is an accurate word – with the notion of how Christians get married. Dating was portrayed as not quite trusting God for your future spouse. The real people of faith prayed, and when God told the man to ask for a woman’s hand in marriage then they could do so. Or they could ask the pastor to approach the woman for them.
As a very anxious and shy individual, I was anxious about approaching a woman for a date. Well, this just took all that away! Just get God to do it for you and forego all the relational learning and maturing one gets from just being with people. A cliché I often hear in church at the moment is about “the messiness of life”, and it’s a cliché I agree with. Life is messy, and what we were being taught was an attempt to deny this.
But marriage was spoken about all the time. When would you get married? Is marriage on your mind? Sitting under all this was the slightly icky – messy – fact of sexual desire. The word “marriage” was if not a synonym for “sex”, then inextricably bound up with it. For some reason, we needed to police this aspect of humanity quite stringently.
What happened was very simple: over the next couple of years, people got married. They got on the conveyor belt and – bam! – instant conjugal happiness. But this wasn’t enough, just for us to enjoy the people getting married in our church. Other Christians needed to know about this. They needed to know about it even if they didn’t want to. They didn’t know what they needed. The teaching needed to “get out there”.
A booklet was written detailing the stories of three couples who got married via this teaching. It was called, in the most passive-aggressive misquoting of Scripture ever, “A more Excellent Way.” One of the men involved was even trying to expand it into a book. When the pastor was invited to speak somewhere, he took the booklet with him. We had a product and it had to be exported.
And it’s about here that my personal story intersects with all of this. I had stayed on at university to study an MA in Creative Writing. During my MA I think I fell in love with a woman at the church – or was very attracted to her. Of course, I did nothing other than pray. And I feel the emphasis on marriage was a problem to someone who was struggling to find their way in life. Despite the MA – which I struggled through, I felt very directionless in life and my confidence was very low. To then dwell on a romance sanctioned by God was to some degree a way of escaping the pressure of life decisions I felt unequal to the task of making. I didn’t talk about it with anyone because I felt they wouldn’t understand my lack of confidence; I felt ashamed. I needed proper psychotherapeutic help of some sort, but this tended to be viewed under the sniffy term “fleshly”.
I want to be clear: I wasn’t pointed to this person by anyone; I was drawn to her. Perhaps under different circumstances we could have tried to build a life together. But what circumstance we were in! Take the following as an example:
Always an aggressive speaker (I remember him banging the glass of drinking water he had on the table at the front of the church in frustration at people not changing the way he expected them to), it took a new turn. At least twice in the sermon he said this to the church: “People think I shout too much, that I’m too intense. But I was in my car before church one evening, and I was praying. I said, ‘God, they don’t want me. They think I shout too much.’ And God said, ‘Well, you tell ‘em from me’.”
At the time I was troubled by this; it felt dangerous, but I brushed aside my intuitions because “He knew what he was doing; he was the Pastor.” Now I can see it for what it is, even though my stomach still clenches in anxiety that it might just be God speaking, and that is using the position of power afforded him to intimidate the congregation into compliance. It is an example of coercive control rather than, as I believed then, God communicating himself to us.
That is the most brutal example, the only one when a part of me began to question the Pastor’s example. But what it shows had always been there, was always in the water, had already been working its effect on me.
Despite the fact that there was a great deal of talk of God’s grace, the power games which were being played out told a different story about who God is and how to relate to him. He was a God to be feared, to be intimidated by.
But this is the sort of event which I look back at now and wonder how I could have been taken in. I still, 20 years later, think “how did I allow myself to be so manipulated?”
It was in this environment that I asked a woman to marry me. I was unsure about doing this, and I made the mistake of confiding in a friend at the church. His advice was, “If it’s wrong, then God will providentially stop it from happening.” I was manipulated into getting engaged when I was very unsure about doing it.
I won’t dwell on the story as it is too painful, but I experienced a loss of control, a loss of authority in my life which is almost too unbearable to recount. I spoke to my parents who recognised symptoms of anxiety and depression. They in their turn contact the Pastor in the hope that he would convince me to see a doctor. They didn’t realise that he would do no such thing.
The church believed in Victory! Bright, shining, grandiose, heavily booted Victory, which trounced all opposition. I was fed the theology of my Triumphant Identity in Christ, but it is very hard to accept that when one’s autonomy has been so compromised. And now it seems that the Pastor was not interested in my well-being or well-being of my fiancée; what they wanted was a result! Me healed via his ministry and then married. Victory.
Victory or Control? There was no patience, no interaction with anyone which did not end with “well, are you going to obey God?” This was a church where the Pastor had once preached “ When God says, ’Jump’, we say, ‘How High?’” That’s how obedience was taught to us. And Pressure was the great teacher. When the world pressured us, then God grew us. When my depression didn’t get better, when I didn’t want to marry this woman, then I was disobedient. I was in rebellion. I “made Jesus, the Messiah, a liar.”
The last time I was in that church I had broken off the engagement. I also took communion, and the Pastor intimated to me, in front of other people, that I shouldn’t have taken communion because I was walking in known disobedience to God. There was a hint of a warning there.
I left the church after that night and returned to live with my parents, something which leaves me with a feeling of failure. It has taken me nearly 20 years to process this experience, years to begin to see it as a period when I was emotionally abused and manipulated in an atmosphere very similar to a cult. Sadly, much of the processing has taken place in secular environments because churches, no matter how well-intentioned, give very little space for someone to talk about these experiences.
Conservative evangelicals won’t be allowed to read this disturbing article (strictly speaking, won’t allow themselves to read it) which is a shame because some day it would be great to see the end of some of these doctrines and practices.
Charismatic evangelicals will also recognise the traits of their masters’ dictates, which carry even more tenuous connections to a balanced reading of scripture.
A good few here will recognise similarities to their own stories and to those of their acquaintances and friends, and vouch for the dangerous coercive control going on.
If you want to, date people. You will make mistakes. Good, that’s how life is to be lived, when we learn from them. Learn how to relate to people, including those you might prefer a closer relationship with. Don’t be forced into marriage, but don’t be afraid of it either.
We would do well as Christian people to overcome our obsession with sex, and move on. And please let’s stop using our hefty guidelines to control and manipulate people. If you’re celibate great, but don’t expect a medal in heaven. I’m sure there is going to be a lot more accountability for how we treated people when we finally get there, rather than all the things we didn’t do.
“If you want to, date people. You will make mistakes. Good, that’s how life is to be lived, when we learn from them.”
I agree. The whole tenor of purity culture is opposed to the human capacity for learning from mistakes; if it sends out a message, it is “we need to get it right and not getting it right is BAD!”
In fact, the Pastor in this article (I wrote it, by the way) had a passionate fear of things not being perfect and this fear was communicated to us. I was already terrified of failure and making mistakes, which naturally grafted itself onto how I related to God.
The church I’m in now has a much more accepting view of people and things not being perfect. Myself, I’m more open to the idea that mistakes are how we learn and grow.
Thank you Simon. It’s powerful piece and needed saying.
Simon, I’m glad you’re in a more wholesome church now. These kinds of experience really leave scars. Best wishes to you, and thanks for writing.
Thank you !
I am a conservative evangelical (baptist) but did read the article, as I often read articles, both Christian and secular which I may disagree with, I guess many are not so open minded!
However, having stated that, the doctrine and practice described seems extreme to me, not representative of anything I’ve ever come across, and the behaviour and attitude of the pastor described would ring warning bells that it was a church to get away from.
Hello Trevor, and thanks for taking the trouble to read the above and reply.
Hi Trevor. Nice to “meet” you. Everyone welcome! 😀
Hi
Yes, thanks for taking the time to read it.
In the interests of balance, I have met conservative evangelical leaders who are – in my opinion – very decent human beings who care sincerely about other people.
I’m an evangelical anglican minister…. I’ve not come across this doctrine and practice either…
Not in 60 years of anglican worship or 46 years of ordination…
Yes, in your unfortunate experience, it appears to be around… but common, no.
Hi Ian, good to hear from you. Would all the congregants over these many years in your church, when polled anonymously (as you are) agree unanimously with your assertions?
Hi Steve,
I’m a conservative evangelical and I read this. Sorry to let you down 😄
I do think this piece aims to scaremonger somewhat but then it is an extreme example. The situation in the story above is a very usual one and not something I have experienced in my time in evangelical churches (15+years).
@Simon Richiardi – thanks for sharing your story. If I had attended that church, I would have left too.
I don’t see anything wrong with maintaining a clear teaching on sexual practice and marriage (not that the church above exhibits this). We need good teaching that supports marriage and a healthy approach to dating. I can attest to this through the relationships of my secular school friends who have effectively given up on committed relationships due to years of ‘humping and dumping’ (excuse the term).
We all make mistakes, right? If we didn’t how else could we request Christ’s atonement. None of us is perfect.
Some context on me, I’m 34, became a Christian at 20 while at Uni, attended a Baptist church and now I attend a conservative evangelical in the Church of England. I remained celibate until I got married at the age of 26 (it wasn’t easy to remain celibate but my wife and are glad we both did). I struggled with pornography. I also dated women prior to marriage but never engaged in sexual activity with them. I see no problem with dating or aspiring towards marriage.
On another note: Sadly, I kind of got used to conservative evangelicals been smeared for some reason in the comments section – why is this? Hopefully, Christ will recognise me as a ‘good and faithful servant’ alongside many others.
Hi Edmund, when I was your age I was a conservative evangelical too, and I know many fine people in those churches I attended.
Sometimes things don’t quite add up, and a few of those for whom it didn’t, end up here on this blog.
Life would be a heck of a lot simpler for me if I were completely wrong. I wish it were so.
Best wishes for your journey. Steve
Hi Steve,
Interesting to note that you were once a conservative evangelical. Thanks for sharing this.
Genuine question – I’m interested to hear your story as to why this changed – would you be open to having a phone/Zoom chat?
I’m a new reader to survivingchurch.org, so I’m trying to get a picture of its readership.
This would be a tad too “un-boundaried” for me! There are many back episodes of the blog where you can get to know the behaviour and ideas of its contributors.
Hi Edmund. #me too! And a Baptist! I think the problem for me would be the rigid insistence that you are right. It is always possible to be wrong.
The teaching in purity culture (so called) is not appreciably different from New Testament and Christian historical teaching. It is, however, being assumed that it is. So my question is: on what grounds?
It is just that the disparity from the surrounding culture becomes more noticeable the more the surrounding culture changes. This is the culture’s doing, of course, not Christianity’s.
Nor is it appreciably different from what has been understood as normal in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism.
Hello
I don’t feel qualified to enter into a discussion about the wide aspects of p, despite being the person who has written the above article.
Ultimately, the article is about my experience of a harmful Christian environment and I think that much of that harm stemmed from the way the teaching about marriage was practised.
Quick editorial note – by ‘p’, I meant ‘purity culture.
The heading presents ‘biblical marriage’ as something that needs surviving. Which means the heading is positioning itself as nonbiblical. Then the challenge is to see in what way it is Christian.
Although biblical principles and purity culture (purity is both intrinsically good and biblically honoured/commended) are connected to normal international civilised practice and natural law (just think the exponential increase in discrepancy in number of partners and disease risk between those who marry as virgins and those who don’t; and also the loosening of bonds which spells increased risk for children down the line), Simon’s story is not a typical example of that, as seems to be being agreed.
A question of semantics? Are there any Americans about? Janet? Isn’t “dating” used as a euphemism for sleeping with, at least sometimes? So on the one hand you have the tub thumpers hammering the point about not having sex before marriage, and that being conflated with “no snogging or holding hands” because of different usage of language. And what this reminded me of most of all was the Moonies! The church finds someone suitable and you get married. End of. I’ve also known of it happening among Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Although it differs in details, Simon’s experience is not dissimilar to mine; the chaos and confusion I encountered while trying to understand the ‘mating game’ as a young man was pretty bad. Looking for guidance from the church, I “asked for bread and received a stone.” Back in the early 70’s ‘sound’ books barely touched on love and romance; if they did, they were cold and clinical at the best. One, I recall, said ‘only get married if it will aid your ministry’.(!) Courting and possible sexual experience was taboo; a spiritual danger to be guarded against at all costs. The most innocent expression of interest would be greeted with “you need to give up marriage and serve the Lord.” Joy? That didn’t feature in the equation; life was far too serious for that. Then came the charismatic renewal; writers like Joyce Huggett and Eric Delve seemed to preach a much more feeling orientated message, but it simply didn’t fit the reality of my life. Eric advocated finding God’s perfect partner by ‘playing the field’ – which assumed there was a field, and it wanted to be played with. Arthur Wallace and his Restoration movement had their own take – women needed male ‘covering’ because “the Bible said so” – they couldn’t make decisions for themselves, even if single and, therefore as a single man I was ‘forcing some poor girl to live in sin, depriving her of her ordained headship.’ Both sets of assumptions simply did not fit the reality of life in the small town or rural churches which was my world.
And there weren’t any ‘permissible’ substitutes either – Page 3, self stimulation and imaginary encounters were taboo. Even Buzz (21CC, as it became) magazine, which got into big trouble for running a sex advice series, left little hope of ‘pleasure’ with all its regulations. Purity, in an unachievable form, was the desired object, as if we were supposed to have had our sexual desires destroyed on conversion. No wonder I struggled with guilt. With hindsight it was / is all part of the culture of fear, repression and sense of shame with which certain parts of the church have surrounded anything to do with sex. As one clerical friend asked me, having explained what I’d been taught, “How are young people to learn about sex?” to which the answer was “They aren’t.” There isn’t space to go on – enough to say the lack of reality in the advice offered beggared belief. And too much of it was based around control and manipulation. Simon’s pastor sounds a bit sociopathic, and isn’t the only cleric I’ve met with that problem, or latent empire building desires – but dealing with socially or emotionally immature, idealistic young people provides a lot of scope for such manipulation. Left to our own devices, we all have the potential to do that, unfortunately. I prefer not to discuss it unless I know the other person very well, and know that they can be trusted – and that can take a lot of doing. You learn by experience, but can pay a…
The 3,000 character limit (being actually slightly lower than this in my experience) has unfortunately cut off the end of your remarks, John, and I for one would like to hear more of what you say, as you’re saying it rather than better than me. Thanks, much appreciated
If anyone gets cut off by the character limit, there is is nothing to stop them starting a new comment. I would ask contributors always to consider whether more is better! Long narratives can be submitted as blog contributions to parsvic2@gmail.com
Thank you for writing about your experiences Simon, I hope you are healing from them.
My own experience is not dissimilar.
I went to a baptist church as a teenager in the 90s that followed lessons in love and was basically an early adopter of stringent purity culture.
The girls and boys were separated and we were taught not to tempt boys with our clothing or behaviour and that it was our responsibility for making sure things never went too far with boyfriends. If you are thinking wow that is creating rape culture and many #churchtoo stories, you’d be right.
I did ask what lessons the boys were getting but never got a clear answer.
Our pastor threw a hissy fit when the parliamentary discussion was going on about lowering the age of consent for gay sex (from 21 to 18 at this point). He got angry and called down a vote in church, in the middle of a service, asking ppl to come and sign his petition against this – which was on the table (like the altar) at the front of church.
As ppl got up and filed down the aisles to sign it, I got up and walked out of the door, vomited in the car park then ran away.
It’s really important that we hear and #believesurvivors and don’t minimise experiences of church abuse by guessing how common it is or is not.
I wish you well Simon on your journey of faith in safer places
Hi #churchtoo.
We are all very sorry for your experience. Re clothing and behaviour, it is very important not to assume that each gender understands how the other gender’s brain typically works, what it is like to be the other gender. Or that boys will typically react much the same as girls, or vice versa. In reality they don’t. Not at all. The boys would have understood the advice though the girls didn’t, not knowing first hand what it is like to be a boy.
Re ‘it was our responsibility’, I do not at all see why it is one gender’s responsibility more or less than another’s. It is both genders’ responsibility equally, and, yes, both should take that responsibility. The advice was absolutely right towards girls to take responsibility, but absolutely wrong in implying that boys should not and that the primary responsibility was girls’.
Spot on Christopher, well said.
Hi #churchtoo
Many thanks for your supportive comments.
I agree about the need for survivors of abuse to be heard! That really should be the priority in responding to them.
Thanks again
Simon – Definitely! Listening is the most important thing, and making space.
Have you read Shameless by Nadia Bolz Weber? That’s an interesting read from multiple experiences of purity culture and the harm it does
Hi #church too,
I haven’t read that but will make a note of it. I have seen the documentary Joshua Harris made about surviving ‘I kissed Dating goodbye’.
I find hearing other people’s experiences really helpful, actually. It helps one feel less alone with the issues, so I appreciate you sharing what you went through.
Hi Simon. Yes I think sharing experiences is incredibly healing – as long as it’s with ppl who are actually listening rather than talking over you!
You might find some of the discussions about Hillsong insightful. Not the same old same old white mansplaining and defending of the institutions going on, but the podcasts and interviews with ppl who suffered abuse – sexual, financial, spiritual – and are walking a path of healing.
There is the Hillsong exposed documentary and the podcasts false profits, leaving Hillsong and a megachurch shattered
Some of the really problematic issues are recognisable in other parts of the evangelical world and I am finding it really helpful for re thinking how do we heal? What does healthy church look like? How do I want to be and do church?
Obvs I should give you a content warning as it’s tough stuff. But I think this deconstruction is really healthy for a number of reasons
Not least because the image of God portrayed in such circles can be massively harmful. And walking away leads to being able to hear the gentle and loving whisper of the Spirit
Is there such a thing as womansplaining, or is equality dead?
Hi #church too
It’s taken me a while to respond. Thanks for directing me towards the Hillsong material. The issues there do interest me, though I’ve always stayed away from organisations like Hillsong as I’m just not comfortable with spirituality expressed in the styles associated with megachurches.
One podcast which helped me was The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, which is about the Mars Hill church in Seattle. Even though I didn’t go to a megachurch, I found so many parallels with my experience. It really helped me unpick different things.
I wish more churches did think more deeply about how a person heals from this type of abuse and what they need; it seems to be something which isn’t understood, in my opinion.
Oops! My reply to this is at the foot of this page
Worse harm is done by things like Nadia Bolz Weber just chucking her son a packet of prophylactics and then (as though to give a visual aid of her book title) broadcasting the fact to the world.
Purity by contrast is by definition a positive thing, which has always (unlike the above) been integrally associated with Christian doctrine and behaviour; and is appreciated as such when it is encountered.
I think you’ve misunderstood my post Christopher
The girls were taught not to tempt boys with their clothing and behaviour in the sessions for the girls only
The boys were taught no such thing, I found out later
You can’t possibly state that out of a group of teens unknown to you in the 90s that “the boys would have understood the advice but the girls didn’t”. And as stated we were separated out and this policing of clothing and behaviour was perpetrated on the girls only.
Purity culture does so much harm
Hi #churchtoo.
I am speaking generally.
People with male brains, bodies and life experiences (which is a biological and anthropological matter not a sociological or cultural one) will understand how males react to dress and clothing. People with female brains etc will naturally understand this less well and vice versa.
There was an idea at that time – not by any means at that time alone – that male attraction is primarily visual in contradistinction to female. Obviously this is not clear cut and would not have been presented as being, but if that is how the averages are that is all that a presenter can say.
I think what’s being described here is a slightly updated version of the very traditional double standards. Women were expected to be pure and come to their marriage beds as virgins: men not only were not expected to be virgins, but quite the opposite: they were in fact expected to be sexually experienced and to initiate their virgin brides into the mysteries of sex, having gained their sexual experience somewhere else somehow. We see this in Victorian times, when middle-claass men were typically a decade or so older than their wives. Not coincidentally, there were tens of thousands of prostitutes in Victorian London.
Yes – but the way to equalise that inequality is obviously by levelling up, not by levelling down to a lowest common denominator of behaviour. That would mean that even those who were previously valued enough to be brought up to a higher standard of behaviour are now abandoned and told that a lower standard is fine, with all its knock-on effects.
Christopher – These are sensitive topics where it is easy to cause offence. I feel you have strayed way off topic and outside the levels of courtesy that are required and expected. I will need to moderate your comments if you cause offence by using language away from the spirit of the blog. Womansplaining is not acceptable in a civilised conversation.
Thanks for this comment Stephen
Hi Simon
I also stay away from megachurches. However Hillsong’s influence reached into the Con Evo church I was a part of – not just in the songs, but the psychology. With signs like “you belong” that are similar, amongst other ways of relating and attempting to draw ppl in.
So I find the Hillsong exposed and false profits podcasts really useful to consider what happened to me in a very similar context. Particularly the misogyny shown by some male leaders towards women, which is deconstructed in these podcasts. Something that is of course alive and well in UK evangelical circles
I find Mark Driscoll such a problematic character that personally I don’t find the rise and fall of Mars Hill helpful, since I find it mad that he was ever placed in leadership positions in the first place. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mark-driscoll-women-as-pe_b_5804964 offers some insight into this.
I guess for me, people must always be placed as higher value than the institution. All people. It’s often the way hierarchical institutions and organisations misuse power that’s really problematic and causes harm
I start from a very grassroots / mustard seed point of view 🙂
Hi #churchtoo
I can see what you’re saying about Hillsong. I think Hillsong worship music crept into churches I was involved in, and I remember friends talking about them quite favourably. (I didn’t really like the music). You highlight what is troubling about organisations like Hillsong, which is that they don’t exist outside orthodox churches in the way, for example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses do but are part of the fold.
Thanks for the link to the article about Mark Driscoll.