A brief note about the title: the “you” here may not be you personally, and it’s not that the term “purity culture” doesn’t have its place. Rather, there are specific uses of this term that have put a dent in a speaker’s credibility for me and impeded their argument. In those moments, I’ve wished for the words to explain to them what I thought they were doing wrong. This post is my attempt to put together those words: first by explaining the origins of “purity culture,” leading into my understanding of its key traits, and then contrasting that against the kind of usage I see a problem with.
[Crossposted to Pillowfort.]
priest: *drops half the communion bread on the floor*
priest: *out loud, to the whole congregation* One of those moments when I’m glad I’m not Roman Catholic.
Hm, okay. Here’s a thought I’ve been having. Even though it’s January now, a lot of people still have Christmas decorations up, right, and the other day while driving through an unfamiliar part of town I passed a church(?) with a big ol’ “Keep Christ in Christmas” banner, and that reminded me of my whole… perspective, on… that.
Sam wrote in:
Why are you a Theist?
Ahaha. Oh man. Really? Okay.
(For those reading: that’s it. That’s the full message, as it was received.)
Well, first maybe I should clarify, I wouldn’t like… introduce myself as “a theist.” The reason this blog is called “The Ace Theist” is for the wordplay, honestly.
Anyway, I kind of wish you had said a little more or elaborated on what you were looking for here, because there’s at least several ways you could approach this question.
[cw: sex-normativity, misogyny, rape culture]
It is through sexual union that people feel closest to Christ. Not only does God reveal himself in sexual love, but, as one book poetically argues, the only way mortals can find Christ is in the marital act, which is the holiest of acts. In this sense, the marital union is seen as a profound prayer, as “no human activity gives more glory to man’s creator than the act by which man is permitted to share in creation.” […]
Husbands and wives are obligated to honor each other’s sexual needs for “it is God’s will that married people enjoy sexual relations.” Abstinence from sex is allowed only under specific conditions, by mutual agreement, and temporarily. […]
The two principal types of sexual maladjustment cited in the manuals are frigidity on the part of the wife and premature ejaculation on the part of the husband. According to one book, “sexual frigidity is without doubt the greatest sexual problem threatening contemporary marriages. It is not an exaggeration to say that the majority of modern wives are, in some degree, frigid!” These authors are pessimistic regarding the transformation of cold into passionate wives. “There are frigid women, many of them, and the most skilled lovers would be powerless to ‘cure’ them.”
Lionel S. Lewis and Dennis D. Brissett, “Sex as God’s Work”
Nothing to say here that I haven’t said already.
Thanks again to Kristiny for the link.
and you know what that means.
Getting ready for Easter Sunday.
John Lennon’s Imagine.
Alright, what do I have to do to summon a skeptic or whatever they’re called on short notice? We’re talking Brené Brown at the church I’ve been visiting lately and her “”discoveries”” have been driving me up the wall.
According to Leonardo Boff, what social analysis calls “structural poverty,” faith calls “structural sin,” and what social analysis calls “the private accumulation of wealth,” faith calls “the sin of selfishness.” Suffering exists because sin represents the root of all that is wrong with the world… For liberationists, sin is communal. All sins, even those committed by individuals, have communal ramifications. All too often, Eurocentric theology has made sin and its redemption personal. Sin becomes an act of commission or omission, while salvation from our sinfulness rests in a personal savior in the form of Jesus Christ. Conversion, however, is never personal but must extend to social transformation. What is missing for Eurocentric religious thought is the structural nature of sin. Oppression and poverty as expressions of sin are mostly caused by societal structures that are designed to enrich the few at the expense of the many.
–Miguel A. De La Torre, Liberation Theology for Armchair Theologians, p.54-55
I don’t like the tone of most of this book, but at least there’s this.