Tag Archives: Christian culture

Blog

Joshua Harris Kisses Christianity Goodbye

Today’s blog will be a little personal and a lot theological. This isn’t new for me, but if you’re not interested in such things, I won’t mind if you skip it. However, it’ll tackle a cautionary tale of a writer’s influence. In this case, Joshua Harris.

For those who don’t know, Harris wrote and published an infamous book at age 21 in 1997 called I Kissed Dating Goodbye. It was an instant sensation, selling over a million copies. Unfortunately, as the trailer for Harris’ recent documentary on the book’s influence says, “The best-seller became the Bible for Christian romance.” He wrote a follow-up a few years later titled Boy Meets Girl since by that point he’d gotten married.

The cover to his infamous book, which was published in 1997.

Fast forward two decades. In 2016, Harris announced that he regretted writing the book because of the influx of letters he’d received from people who were hurt by his advice. He realized, among other things,

In trying to warn people of the potential pitfalls of dating, it instilled fear for some—fear of making mistakes or having their heart broken. The book also gave some the impression that a certain methodology of relationships would deliver a happy ever-after ending—a great marriage, a great sex life—even though this is not promised by scripture.

The poster for Harris’ new documentary.

This is prompted him to make the aforementioned documentary, I Survived I Kissed Dating Goodbye, and take this book and the sequel out of print.

Things got worse last month. He announced on his Instgram that he was divorcing his wife. A few days later in another post, he confessed,

I have undergone a massive shift in regard to my faith in Jesus. The popular phrase for this is “deconstruction,” the biblical phrase is “falling away.” By all the measurements that I have for defining a Christian, I am not a Christian. Many people tell me that there is a different way to practice faith and I want to remain open to this, but I’m not there now.

There’s been a lot of talk in Christian culture about this, and understandably so. Harris’ influence was pervasive. I myself didn’t read his first book (I thought the idea was dumb), but I did read his second because I thought it had more legitimacy. I’m sure he gave most of the same advice. While I always balked at the idea of “not dating” and letting God providentially give you a spouse, these ideas became so common in the church, I think I absorbed some of them by osmosis. I was young and impressionable and hadn’t yet learned critical thinking skills (well, at least when it came to things espoused by other Christians). Do I count myself as one of the people hurt by Harris’ teachings? Yes, but I was hurt by his “splash damage” (to use a gaming term) and not directly wounded. I’ve been working hard to shed my old thinking for a long time.

Harris has admitted he’s a recovering legalist. He took the strict rules of the crazy, stereotype-creating spheres of homeschooling (#NotAllHomeschoolers) and made them mainstream. Legalism is always destructive. The problem is rules are easier to preach, teach, and enforce than comparatively nebulous principles. Jesus said to “love your neighbor.” That begs questions like, “Who is my neighbor?” and “How do I love them?” Rules regulate behavior. Principles guide motivations. That’s why Jesus spoke against legalism and “religiousness” more than anything else. Just read the Sermon on the Mount. He makes it clear that adultery is an action that stems from lust, which occurs in the heart. It wasn’t enough to stop the actions; the internal sin has to be quelled first.

Legalism frequently drives people away from Christianity. Such an emphasis is placed on rules that it robs churchgoers or young Christians of any joy. I’ve heard countless stories of this. I’m sure the seemingly extreme methods Harris advocated drove people away. It created not only tremendous pressure on young people, but an atmosphere of parental and liturgical tyranny and hypocrisy. Teens weren’t allowed to do the usually innocent things their parents did growing up. “Do as I say and not as I did.” Maybe those parents made mistakes and had good intentions, but as the old saying goes, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

Knowing all of this, it’s no surprise Harris’ life has turned out the way it has. His personal brand of legalism wrecked many people, possibly led to his divorce, and eventually drove him to abandon Christianity. It took twenty years for it to happen, but those consequences caught up with him. Now more than ever the rotten fruit of Harris’ teachings and those of the so-called “Purity Culture” are being reaped. Personally, I think recent events have invalidated all of books (or at least his books on dating and courtship). Regardless, I do hope and pray he finds his way back to the faith.

This should give writers pause for concern. Your words have power. The power to influence. That’s something that shouldn’t be taken lightly. James 3:1 says, “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” What we pen will guide and direct the hearts and minds of our readers. This is why parents often attack rappers, filmmakers, and video games after a school shooting: they think their products made kids go on murder sprees. (Perhaps that’s a bad example). My point is the knowledge and advice we share as writers, which in a way makes us teachers, creates culture and thoughts. Yes, we can’t control how people will respond to what we write and say, but we still yield tremendous power on our readers.

And as the late great Stan Lee wrote, “With power there must also come great responsibility.”

What do you think of the Josh Harris news? Are you surprised? Why or why not? Did you read his books? How did they influence you?

Blog

Double-Minded: Christian Culture’s Diametrically-Opposed Views of Marriage and Singleness

Buckle up, True Believers. It’s about to get real!

I am a Christian. In fact, as a child I did everything in a church except be born there. While I love the Bible and its theology and doctrine, Christian culture annoys me. Trust me when I say there are huge differences. It’s one of many reasons why I love The Babylon Bee: Christian culture is a frequent target of their satire. As it should be.

Image taken from www.trumpet-call.org.

While there are many problems with the Christian subculture (which I will refer to as “the church” from here on), one of the most egregious, in my opinion, is that it is double-minded when it comes to marriage and singleness. To put it succinctly, if you’re already married, it sings the praises of marriage and family, but if you’re single, it does little or nothing to help you get married and tells you singleness is superior to marriage.

I’m sorry, church, but you can’t have it both ways.

Go to any church and you’ll see how it’s family-centric. There are programs for parents, spouses, kids, and teens. Some offer programs for college students and recent graduates, but they seem to assume that everyone gets married by their mid-20s—if not sooner—so little is offered for those who aren’t. There are frequent sermon series on how to have a good marriage or be better parents. It’s hard to not go a week without hearing the theology of marriage; how it’s an earthly echo of Jesus Christ and his “bride,” the Church. (This is something that isn’t meant to be taken literally, by the way). In other words, most of the Christian subculture is centered on marriage and family.

Just don’t expect it to help you get married, like I said.

When it comes to taking steps toward marriage, in my experience, the church is mostly famine and little feast. Generally it seems to think relationships happen by osmosis. It rarely facilitates opportunities for young people—who frequently express their desire to be married—to meet each other and fall in love. Yet in the rare instances when they speak on the issue, they say the church is the best place to meet someone special. All that “unequally yoked” stuff, right? But there are hardly any programs for singles beyond college. And don’t even think about being single after age 30! You’ll be a misfit among misfits. The church won’t have any idea what to do with you. The rare times anyone in the church does try to help singles get to marriage, they’re obnoxiously overzealous or have nothing to offer but empty platitudes.

But then there’s the insult added to singles’ injuries.

The church’s praise of marriage ceases with singles. No longer is it this wonderful, covenantal portrait of Christ’s love. No, it’s a distraction. Instead of Ephesians 5, singles get 1 Corinthians 7. They’re told that marriage will narrow their scope, distract them from serving God, and even make them preoccupied with “earthly” things (there is no marriage in Heaven, after all). The only benefit they might mention is it can help curtail sexual sin, and even that seems like a concession they wish they didn’t have to make. In other words, marriage is a detriment to the single’s faith. This implicitly condemns the institution of marriage, ignoring the fact that it was created by God before Adam and Eve sinned. It wasn’t a byproduct of the Fall that God had roll with. This mindset also ignores the personal and societal benefits of marriage, many of which are being missed because of the culture of protracted singleness (to which the church has contributed some, but that’s a blog for another day).

What this does to Christian singles is it leaves them silently shamed. They desire marriage, but they’re told it’s a detriment to their faith and potential. If it’s a hindrance, why would they desire it? Should they? Why would Christ allow them to desire something that would distract them from serving Him? Yet the church tells the married majority that matrimony is sacred and powerful and must be protected. Why do you think Christian churches are always the ones fighting for the definition of marriage being “one man and one woman”? The irony is they’re just as likely to tell singles it isn’t worth it. Maybe for the sake of consistency they should tell married couples to all get divorced so they can have “undistracted service” for Christ. Oh wait, God says He hates divorce, so they hate divorce.

This is a catch-22 full of knots that the church keeps chewing in the mouth from which is talks out of both sides.

Singles aren’t second-class citizens nor are they inherently superior because they’re unmarried. Their desire for marriage is a good thing. It should be respected, nurtured, and encouraged. The pain they feel from this unfulfilled desire should be met with compassion and understanding and not lectures on contentment and 1 Corinthians 7. Doing that is no different than telling someone whose grandmother has died that he shouldn’t mourn because she’s “in a better place.” This is a pain most singles don’t just “get over.” To be alone (and rejected) when you desire a spouse is a form of widowhood. The Bible frequently commands Christians to care for widows.

What the church needs is consistency. Celebrate marriage with everyone. Help singles maximize their lives where they are and don’t shame them for desiring a spouse. For those rare few who’ve been called to singleness, give them opportunities not afforded to married people. Modes of service don’t decrease with marriage—they just change.

Marriage is hard, but so is singleness. Depending on the person, one or the other will be more difficult. Someone should never be forced into either one if God didn’t create them to be that way. It’s a simple concept. But the church has trouble grasping such things.

Are you a single who’s been hurt by these conflicting mindsets? How so? What do you think can be done to remedy these problems?

Blog

Why Christians are Lousy at Romance

The title of this blog is a bit misleading. I’m not saying that Christians are terrible at being in romantic relationships. That’s a whole other subject. No, I’m saying they’re terrible at writing stuff like love songs and love stories.

This train of thought came about because of a conversation I had with some friends on my personal Facebook page. We were discussing songs I’d consider using for a first dance if I got married, one of which was “Godsend” by dc Talk. One friend commented that she didn’t think that was that good of a song and that most Christian artists were bad at writing love songs. I asked her why she thought that, and she replied (in all caps for humorous emphasis) “BECAUSE OMG(osh) IF PEOPLE LISTEN TO LOVE SONGS THEN THEY MIGHT GET SINFUL IDEAS. PROTECT THE PURITY!!!”

I laughed because it was true.

Since my youth, I’ve known about the three primary words used for “love” in ancient Greek: eros (sexual/romantic love), phileo (friendship), and agape (unconditional love). The latter two were used in the Bible, but not the first. While it was often preached that all three were needed to have a thriving marriage, the huge emphasis was placed on agape because it was correctly said that unconditional love required commitment, and commitment was sorely lacking in many modern marriages. Too often, though, eros was barely acknowledged or it was forgotten, relegated to being the least of the loves.

This, sadly, is a huge fault of western (or just American?) Christian culture. They have so overcompensated for a secular culture that both exploits and worships sex and romance that they have almost demonized it. Now, this isn’t a new problem. There’s always been a sect of ascetics somewhere in Christianity that held to views like this. This was influenced by Gnosticism, a belief that what was of the spirit was good and what was of the body was evil. While it was regarded as heresy, some Gnostic thought has infiltrated some Christian teaching like an insidious disease. This is most true when it comes to Christian culture’s view of sexuality. Sexual desire was equated with the sin of lust. Women’s bodies were seen as weapons of temptation. Men were seen as animals incapable of controlling their urges. This has wreaked havoc on Christian young people, as you might expect. Even I wasn’t totally immune to it growing up despite having sensible parents.

Even if sexuality wasn’t seen as a vice, there were still those who minimized its importance because it was believed Christians—particularly young people—placed too much of an emphasis on romantic feelings and not on “true love.” In other words, agape. Eros didn’t last; it was selfish because it focused on one person and his/her immediate “needs.” It wasn’t what made a marriage last. It’s like eros was the ugly middle child the family acknowledged only out of obligation. I’ve even heard of Christian romance novels (I hate using that term as a genre) where the woman in the couple acts as though she has no sexual desire at all, and this is presented as a good thing!

This is why many Christian creators don’t write much about romance, preferring to focus on agape, phileo, and/or loving God. Those are safer. There are plenty more positive Bible passages on those subjects. They forget the Bible has its fair share of love stories (Jacob and Rachel, Ruth and Boaz, etc.) Heck, if you really want to shock some Christians, make them read Song of Solomon (aka Song of Songs)! Yes, the Bible has love poetry in it—and it’s steamy, at that!

Even when Christians do write about romance, it’s often watered down or presented as an allegory for the love of God for the Church. This, I think, is an example of some Christians becoming, as the old saying goes, “too heavenly-minded to be of any earthly good.” While the Church is called the “bride of Christ,” the Bible never uses romantic language to describe that love. Even the Song of Solomon has been interpreted not as the sultry interactions of two lovers but as a metaphor for Christ and the Church. (I’d love to see how they’d handle passages like this one, then).

God created romance. God created sex. Genesis says God looked at all He created and called it “good.” This included sex and romance. The Bible begins with the “wedding” of Adam and Eve, the first lovers, who were unashamed in their nakedness and love for each other. It was the Fall that ruined things. But sex isn’t a byproduct of sin. The Devil, being evil, is incapable of creating anything. He can only corrupt what was already good. He did the same with sexuality and romance. It’s him who compels humanity to exploit it as a commodity or to worship it as an idol. They were God’s creations, His gifts to mankind. The Devil knows how precious and powerful those gifts are, how they can bind two people together and make them a powerful force for good. That’s why He fears them and wants to see them denigrated.

It’s time Christian creators stopped fearing sex. It’s time they elevated eros as being equal with the other loves. It’s time they took back what was taken from them by the Devil.

I, for one, would love to be a part of that.

Do you think Christian creators need to work on being “romantic”? Why or why not? Can you name any good examples of good love songs or love stories written by Christians? Why do you think Christians are bad at writing romances?

Blog

“Christian” is a Worldview, not a Genre

U2. Believe it or not, they’re a Christian band.

The beauty of WordPress is I can schedule a blog to be automatically posted, which is what I did with this one. I actually wrote it a few days ago. Why did I do this? Because I’m in the middle of the “fortnight from Hell” at my day job. (Long story).

Anyway, I grew up in a Christian home, so I’m well-versed in the Christian subculture. Honestly, the older I’ve gotten, the more annoyed I am with it. Not so much that I’ve rejected my faith (I think Christian faith and Christian culture are two completely different things and may as well be mutually exclusive), but enough to see how they usually don’t match up.

I’m going to focus only on one particular facet today: the idea that “Christian” is a genre.

This idea was initially sparked a year or so ago when I was talking with a friend on the phone who said she didn’t want to read my books because they weren’t “Christian enough.” As in, they wouldn’t fit into the Christian “genre” as defined by booksellers.

Christians, despite being commanded to go into the world and make disciples (Matt. 28:16-20), have for many years seemed intent on isolating themselves from the rest of the world and creating their own little culture complete with its own brand of entertainment. It goes all the way back to 1970s with the advent of “contemporary Christian music” thanks to the Jesus Movement. This has since expanded in other forms of media. Most recently, “faith-based films” such as God’s Not Dead have been popular the last few years.

While I have issues with the often poor artistic merits of many of these media (that’s a blog for another day), my biggest gripes with the so-called “Christian genre” are the mindsets it creates. First, it makes Christian culture very insular. I’ve known many fellow believers who refused to consume any media that wasn’t obviously Christian. In other words, listening to Carman was fine, but not Run-D.M.C. If it wasn’t didactic about faith, it was “too secular.” Some of it was even erroneously seen as satanic. These were things to be shielded against, especially when it came to kids (it’s always about the children, isn’t it?). So, new media was created by Christians for Christians. Considering the aforementioned often poor quality of their substitutes, it’s no wonder many Christians in the last 30-40 years grew up with bad senses of what makes good art. (Not to mention Christian creators were making obvious rip-offs of “secular” entertainment long before the Asylum. Anyone else remember the Spine Chillers Mysteries books?). It created an “us vs. them” mentality. It was about being “safe” and avoiding risky ideas that might challenge one’s faith.

Second, as I’ve already hinted at, it made “Christian” into a genre. Demon Hunter wasn’t just a metal band; they were a “Christian” metal band. (For the record, Demon Hunter is a genuinely great band). Like any genre, this automatically establishes the intended audience and the content (which, as I’ve noted, was often didactic and subpar). The problem is that “Christian” shouldn’t be a genre. It should be a philosophy, a worldview. Do atheists and other religions turn their beliefs into genres for the sake of marketing? For the most part, no. (Although some may do so in response to “Christian” stuff or as satire). In the history of literature, Christian authors didn’t concern themselves with whether their stories fit nicely into a “Christian genre”; they just told their stories. Think about how classics like Moby-Dick by Herman Melville or Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky or The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien (did you really think I’d get through this without mentioning my all-time favorite book?) if they were published in today’s environment in Christian publishing. I have a feeling they’d either be rejected by Christian publishers or watered down in the editing process.

“Christian,” as I’ve said, is a worldview, not a genre. It’s something that, when done correctly, flows naturally into a creator’s work because it’s a part of him. Art is an expression of its creator, so it’s impossible for him to not imbue it with how he sees the world. But, as I’ve said for years, story must be king. The moment someone starts sermonizing in his story, whether it’s about religion or environmentalism or whatever, it brings the story down. The storyteller will lose his audience. Heck, even kids will see through that.

Readers and critics will discuss themes and ideas when dissecting a story, but they usually don’t do something like label Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game “Mormon fiction.” Those elements are part of that book because they’re part of Card. To tell his story honestly, he had to write it that way. He wasn’t trying to proselytize anyone. I know that to my fellow Christian creators that might sound crazy, even sacrilegious, but I believe your witness can be helped by not being didactic with your stories.

I’ve been listening to U2’s Greatest Hits albums while writing this blog. U2 is a Christian band (specifically, they’re Irish Catholic). Even a casual listen to their music makes that obvious. They don’t hide or flaunt that. They make their music and let it impact people. Jesus said you can know someone by their fruit (Matt. 7:15-20). That fruit doesn’t need to have “Apple” written on it for people to know what it is.

If you’d like to hear more about this, I highly recommend listening to these episodes of the Derailed Trains of Thought podcast hosted by my friends Nick Hayden and Timothy Deal: Episode 57: And the Moral of the Story is… and Episode 64: Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink.

What are your thoughts on this? Should “Christian” be a genre unto itself? Why or why not?