Purity

      It seems like a lot of people in my age bracket are talking about the effects of Purity Culture on our generation of young adults in the late 90's and early 2000's.  Perhaps some of you reading this experienced it, and perhaps others saw your children or siblings experience it. 

     From what I see, the general consensus today seems to be that Purity Culture was a negative thing, and had a damaging impact on young people.  Not everyone thinks this, and there are some who still follow it.  I must confess to having some mixed feelings about both opinions.  In order to explain, I need to share my own experience, and more importantly, look to the Bible.

     I grew up in a Christian home in the 1980's and 90's.  As early as I remember, my parents told me that if it were God's will for me to be married (for single life can be God's will too), God's man for me would be a Christian, and that it was unwise to even entertain the idea of a relationship with a man who wasn't saved.  That is biblical (Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers... Second Corinthians 6:14).  

Me as a little girl in the 80's, around the time my mom had the talk with me...

     I was taught the facts of life when I was about six.  I remember sitting on my parents' bed beside my mother as she read me a book called The Wonderful Way Babies are Made.  I learned and understood more as I hit puberty.  Sex was for marriage, and for me, marriage was only to a Christian man.  My parents didn't hammer this into me.  It was brought up naturally.  They didn't have a lot of rules surrounding it.  I never remember being told at what age I could date or have a boyfriend.  I definitely wasn't told that I had to court or have my parents arrange or manage my relationships when I got older.  I only knew "courting" from TV shows set in the 19th century, like Little House on the Prairie.  I just thought it was an old-fashioned word for dating.

     My parents' marriage was an example to me.  As of right now in 2024, I am almost 43 years old, and my parents have been married for 45 years (I'm their oldest).  But it has to be admitted that one's parents (while the biggest and most important example) don't make one's heart pound with passion.  I believe God gave me other examples, through godly books and other media, that accomplished that (in conjunction with the example of my parents, of course).  I believe God gave me some ideals to hold out for, which were His best for me.

     There were a lot of mixed messages out there in the world.  Even wholesome, G-rated family TV shows from my generation depicted the central characters dating seriously in junior high and high school, sometimes making out passionately.  This was portrayed as "normal" and as if it was just what teens (even young teens) were expected to do.  It also showed these teen romances being disposable, with breakups and then getting with a new significant other being seen as part of everyday life.

 

     A lot of my friends felt that these shows were meant to depict reality, and felt they didn't measure up if they didn't have a boyfriend.  Dating became more of a game than a chance to meet people and like them for themselves.  It also seemed like it got a lot of people into trouble.  The TV shows might have depicted the characters kissing and stopping at that, but in real life, many of us know that it's very hard to stop with just kissing.  Passions can carry us much further than intended.  

     Almost out of nowhere, along came the Purity movement.  By the time it gained traction, I was almost an adult.  I was sixteen when I Kissed Dating Goodbye came out.  It was one of many, many books on the subject of purity.  There were rallies, conferences, books, videos, groups, paraphernalia...you name it.  Initially, I agreed with what it seemed to be saying.  It removed the pressure to feel the need to date.  The focus was on becoming the person God wanted you to be.  I still agree with that.  I wouldn't make a hard, fast rule against teens having a romantic relationship.  Some godly teens meet the person they'll end up marrying while still young.  You have to take it on a case by case basis.  But the way it was being portrayed on TV and in the overall culture was not good, and I liked the idea that I didn't have to worry about that, but could focus on what God wanted me to do.  So that part of Purity Culture seemed good.

     I also 100% agree with abstinence until marriage.  First Corinthians 6:18 urges believers to Flee fornication...  The Bible makes it clear in multiple places that intimacy is between a husband and wife (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5).  That is something else I agree with about the Purity Movement.  What it wanted was good.  Purity itself is good.  So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.  2 Timothy 2:2

     While I agree with what I have stated above, I can't say I agreed with the Purity movement as a whole.  Christian counselor and author Camden Morgante makes the distinction between traditional Biblical teaching (which I believe) and the Purity Culture (which also believed this, but added many more rules that were extra-biblical).  Morgante was featured in a podcast I follow The Best of You with Christian psychologist Alison Cook.  In this episode, they discussed Morgante's book Recovering from Purity Culture.  I have not read the book, but I highly recommend listening to the podcast, which I'll put at the end.

     Before Purity Culture struck, I had a boyfriend in junior high.  It was very innocent.  Really, we were two kids who liked each other and hung out together.  That was basically it.  He told me I was beautiful once, at our Christmas formal, and I almost melted.  I fantasized about him proposing to me after that.  In all my imaginations of this, he always dropped to one knee, and pulled out a diamond ring, and asked me to marry him.  I would say, Of course I will! and we'd seal the deal with a kiss.  This never happened, of course.  Junior high romances don't usually result in marriage.  12-and-13-year-old girls fantasize about getting engaged, but boys of the same age typically do not!  They're not there yet.  This boy certainly was not.  I was very serious about the Lord, and God revealed to me that this boyfriend was not.  He was from a Christian family, but I'm not even 100% sure he was saved.  After that relationship, I felt called to wait until I was 18 and out of high school to think about dating or having another boyfriend.  To this day, I think that was a good decision.  It was my own choice, which I believed God led me to make.  I don't put that on anyone else.  

     Even though I initially agreed with what the Purity Movement seemed to encourage (waiting until you were an adult to get serious in a relationship, and abstinence until marriage), I started seeing some weird things.  Families we knew took it as almost another gospel (and perhaps that's what it became).  Instead of the Gospel of grace and forgiveness, made possible by Jesus, it became the message that you had this one chance to get it right, and if you went out with someone you didn't end up marrying (even if no sex happened) you had cheated on your future spouse in advance, and you didn't have your whole heart to give away on your wedding day.  There was no redemption.  There was no way to get back on the right track if you failed in any way.  Perfection was demanded.  This is so counter to the real Gospel, which gives us that hope and a future (First Corinthians 2:9).  Males and females had very strictly-defined roles, and if you accidentally didn't follow your script, you had committed the unpardonable sin (forget whether or not what you did was actually a sin according to the Bible).  Other people (sometimes parents, sometimes pastors, sometimes other mentors) had a lot of control over the couple's relationship.  This started to seem wrong to me.  Where was this in the Bible?  It wasn't.  

     With dating taken off the table as an option, many young people started being passive-aggressive.  They had their little boyfriend/girlfriend stuff going on, but didn't officially call it that.  They were "just friends" who held hands, ran their fingers through each other's hair, and gazed into each other's eyes constantly.  Just friends my foot!  A lot of flirting still happened, but no one would stand behind it and actually admit they liked each other, because if they did, they might be giving pieces of their hearts away and ruin their future marriages.  I found this so hypocritical.  Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Purity Movement was right, these people were all still as impure as those who officially had relationships.  Jesus made it clear in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) that sin starts in the heart, and officially committing the act outwardly isn't really where it should be defined.  So, if that is true, these fakers were just as guilty as their "officially dating" counterparts.  Since I think the Purity Movement was wrong about some of this, I'll go out on a limb and say these people were more guilty, because they weren't dealing in the truth.  (You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free, John 8:32).

     Even though the idea was purity, the focus was on sex--how sinful it was outside of marriage, but how wonderful it was within.  An idol was made of sex, it seemed.  Some people now say they were promised a perfect sex-life in marriage if they followed all the rules.  I'm also hearing it referred to as the sexual prosperity gospel.  I can see why they would call it that.  I was never given any of these odd promises of perfect sex, but I knew some were.  Even in my experiences, the emphasis was on sex, which was ironic, considering they were trying to discourage it among teens.  

     For a couple of years as a young adult (aged 18-20), I had a roller coaster relationship with a young man I met doing mission work.  There was a very strong chemistry.  He came on very strongly, and he made me uncomfortable.  However, I was interested, and felt a strong mix of attraction to him and repulsion at how strongly he was coming across that I had a hard time wading through.  Some of it was embarrassing, while other parts were wonderful.  

     One of the ways he came onto me shortly after we met was in a class we were taking.  He stared at me, his eyes bulging out.  That made me feel almost offended, and I ignored it.  He started tapping me, and I still ignored him. Finally, he held the pen he was using in front of my face.  It was from one of those rallies, and said TRUE LOVE WAITS across the side of it.  He pointed at himself, then me, and winked.  My heart stood still and my blood froze.  What was he saying?  It felt like he was using his abstinence pen to actually make a sexual advance, or propose to me, or something!  I honestly didn't know how to take it.  It was at very least, a little flirtatious way to say, "Hey, I like you," but the emphasis on what true love "waits" to do kind of made me feel nauseous.  He had only met me a few days earlier at ministry headquarters.  Everyone thought he was perfect, and that any problem was my fault.  This gave me the message that to be in love means to be uncomfortable and allow someone I'm attracted to to go further than I feel right about.  Marriage was brought up, hinted at, flirted about--but always with a sexual undertone.  Ultimately, that relationship didn't work out.  He wasn't ready for anything, even though he had communicated otherwise, and come on so strongly.  My heart and spirit were ravaged by that experience.  

     The relationship ended when I told him I was making important life decisions and needed to know where we stood.  I confessed my feelings for him.  He took this opportunity to deny everything.  I felt hurt and embarrassed.  I felt played for the fool.  And the Purity Movement was on his side.  He had been manipulative, which was allowed under the Purity Culture rules (hypocrisy was okay, just not officially committing to anything).  He was the man, and could do whatever he wanted.  I was the woman, and (according to what everyone in that movement was saying) I had been wrong to deny his advances (which I had at times), and then question his intentions.  According to leaders like Elisabeth Elliot and Joshua Harris, I was supposed to let this guy waste my time and play with my heart.  I don't think so!  My time and life are valuable, and I don't think God would want me to waste them.  Psalm 90:12 says, Teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom.  

     To be fair and balanced, my husband found the opposite experience.  He found the Purity Movement allowed women to be manipulative, and men to be viewed as predators, even if their intentions were honorable.  He had a lot of hurtful experiences in Bible College as a result of it.  The "right" people were allowed to date/court, but if you weren't in with the right people on campus, you were a predator who was seen as sinning in pursuing a relationship.  It was all carnality disguised as virtue.  

     In my experience with mission trip boyfriend, everyone saw me as wrong and bad.  At very least, I was viewed as a liberal (even though I was a staunch Conservative who had recently voted for the first time ever for George W. Bush in the 2000 election).  My actual beliefs and views didn't matter, though.  I was some crazy extremist who had given my heart away and could never have a good marriage now, unless this same guy came back into my life, because I had given a piece of my heart to him, so he was the only one I could be with and be fulfilled.  Do you see how wrong this teaching was, and where it could lead if you follow it to its logical conclusion?  

     Every book I read about the subject (in desperately trying to find answers to what I had gone through) just condemned me, because they basically all said that women weren't supposed to confront men, ever, under any circumstance.  Elisabeth Elliot's Passion and Purity almost left me wondering if she believed men had a right to rape women and women couldn't resist.  I hasten to add that she didn't say this at all, but her logic that women couldn't ever question or confront men led me to wonder where she believed the line could be drawn?  By the way, I am still that staunch Conservative, both biblically and politically, but I think the gender roles of the Purity Movement are absolutely reprehensible!  

     As it turned out (surprise, surprise) the only book that helped me was the Bible, and I realized it was the only book I needed.  All these Purity books were worthless to me.  They were only good for people who were still perfect (to be perfect in that movement meant you'd never liked someone who wasn't your future spouse yet--if you'd been dumped, you were damaged goods.  If you'd even sat with someone at an event or let him walk you to class, and he didn't end up being your husband, you were damaged goods!).  The Bible, on the other hand, was for us sinners who need help!  That was me!

     It needs to be stated that it has since come out that Elisabeth Elliot was in an abusive marriage (her third marriage after being widowed twice) when she wrote Passion and Purity.  It has also come out that her second marriage (while extremely happy prior to his death) had some ungodly things in the beginning of it (he was still married to his dying wife when he began pursuing Elisabeth, and she accepted this).  What does that prove about her narrow-minded and extra-biblical advice?  And the poster child for the Purity Movement, Joshua Harris, ended up divorced and leaving the faith.  Again, what does that say about all his legalistic claims?  Another who pushed some of the sexist rhetoric of the Purity Movement was Bill Gothard (whom I did not follow in any way), the founder and leader of the Institute of Basic Life Principles.  Sexual abuse was eventually uncovered in this organization, and Gothard's life himself, and he was removed from leadership.  Again, what is the takeaway when those pushing these things (which really aren't even biblical) fail to live up to them?  

Joshua and Shannon Harris early in their marriage (late 90s or early 2000s)--their facade of perfection was still firmly in place.  They allegedly had all the answers.  They were on top of the world, and I was on the bottom.

     I was left in a pit of despair, but the Holy Spirit spoke to my heart, and with His help, and with God's word, I moved forward in my life.  While I don't encourage women to throw themselves at men (for their own dignity's sake!), I don't think it is a sin for women to speak up or call men to account.  I clarify that it isn't a sin for anyone to question another if misleading behavior is happening.  Men and women should honor each other, and be honored.  I do believe the Bible gives some guidelines for men and women, but not like the Purity Culture.  I didn't sin with this mission trip boyfriend.  He did.  It took years to get him out of my system.  Some lines had been crossed, even if they "technically" didn't violate the Purity Culture's rules.  It was a chance for me to deny myself, take up my cross, and follow Jesus, in spite of what I felt.  In God's timing, I met my wonderful husband--the one God had led me to hold out for long before, as a young girl.  It has been better than I ever imagined!  God has been so faithful.  He is SO much better for me in every way!  He didn't play games or hint around.  

Our wedding picture--no facade of perfection, just the joy of being with the one God gave me--and we still have that joy!

     Some people ended up in godly, happy marriages as a result of the Purity Movement.  Some chose to live by biblical principles of waiting to have sex until marriage.  Some took from it that they didn't have to be consumed with dating as a teen.  If the Purity Movement helped someone wait on God for their spouse in a biblical way, then that's great.  But the extra-biblical advice hurt many.  It made navigating relationships confusing, because everyone was terrified to take any sort of initiative, lest they give a piece of their heart away and then be damaged goods.  These fears, and the manipulative behavior they spawned, are not of God in any way.  The graceless teachings are not of God (look at how God redeemed the prostitute Rahab--allowing her to marry into Israel and be an ancestor of Jesus--see Joshua 2-6; Matthew 1:5; Hebrews 11:31).  The very specific gender roles are not of God (God does have plans for male and female, but He doesn't put anyone into THAT narrow of a box--just read the Bible for men and women who took uncharacteristic action--Gideon, Deborah, Ruth, Esther, John the Baptist--for starters!).  Nowhere in the Bible will you find a step-by-step direction for how dating/courtship should be done (the few places where romantic pursuits are recorded, they are simply the stories of those experiencing them, not commands of God on how to do it).  Rather than focusing on that, we should be focusing on living for Christ in all areas of life.  The Bible and indwelling power of the Holy Spirit are to be our guide.  

     While I say this, not only it is hard for me to think back on the false teachings in the Purity Movement, but it is equally hard to hear it complained against and completely discarded for the opposite extreme of unbridled sex.  Many my age who are leaving the faith (they call it deconstructing) state the Purity Movement as their gripe with Jesus and Christianity.  That is so wrong, because they are not the same thing.  They are not synonyms.  God has so much better than the world offers, and He has so much better than well-meaning Purity Movement proponents offer.  What Jesus offers is real--Himself.  

     Some were affected a lot more profoundly than I was by the Purity Culture.  Some had families and churches that really pushed it to the extreme.  Some now say there was a lot of shaming about sexuality and natural feelings and desires.  I never experienced that, but if anyone did, that's not of God either.  God offers His people redemption and wholeness.  No matter how much you've messed up (legitimate sin, or just not following certain man-made standards) there is always hope.  

     While it had some good qualities, thinking about the Purity Culture always makes me feel hopeless.  I was incapable of living up to it.  I think many felt that way.  It made false promises it could not keep.  It offered security in certain behavior, instead of in a relationship with Christ.  It shamed people for having perfectly natural desires, rather than teaching them how to navigate them biblically.  Jesus offers more.  Read His word for your sense of self-worth and purpose.  Rest in His presence and let His Holy Spirit minister to your soul.  Wrestle with truths you don't understand, making them your own as the Lord reveals more and more of Himself to you.  That's what my early 20's looked like, and I am the better for it today.  

     Purity is of God, but the Purity Movement had many unbiblical teachings that were adapted into Christianity, becoming a false gospel in a sense.  Anytime we allow extra-biblical teachings in, it's not going to be good.  That's how cults and false religions start.  Read books for what they are, but go to the Bible for real counsel.  Many in the Purity Movement perfectly followed the principles in it, but failed miserably where it really counted.  Don't be like that.  Do it where it counts.  

Listen to Alison Cook and Camden Morgante discuss Purity Culture here.

Who is Jesus?

     God created us in His image (Genesis 1:27) but often, our temptation is to make God in our image.  Some people have made idols --graven images--of what think God should be.   I imagine most of you reading this have never literally worshipped a graven image.  But many of us still make God in our own image.  By that, I mean that we only see the attributes of God that suit us.  Some only see Him as a God of love, without seeing His righteousness.  Some only see His justice, without seeing His forgiveness.  Some people who don't even acknowledge Him most of the time are very quick to say, "But the Bible says not to judge!" While the Bible does say Judge not, lest you be judged... (Matthew 7:1), those who disregard the rest of scripture and quote this verse are taking it out of context and using it for their own selfish ends.  Out in the world, people make God out to be a god to their liking.  

     What about Bible-believing Christians?  Do we do it too?  Clearly, we are not bowing to statues and worshiping them.  And hopefully, we aren't denying some of God's attributes to overemphasize others.  And yet we can still fall into that.  This is most common when we look at Jesus, God the Son.  

     In Matthew 16:15, Jesus asked a crucial question: But who do you say that I am?  Our answer to that question determines where we will spend eternity.  Peter got it right when he answered Jesus, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.  (Matthew 16:16).  There are a lot of things we can disagree on, but if we don't agree on who Jesus is, we're in trouble.  Jesus Himself said, I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.  (John 14:6).  Jesus described Himself as the only way to God, at the exclusion of all other ways.  This is a far cry from our pluralistic society, that wants everyone to just affirm all beliefs as being right and good.  Some even say that Jesus wants us all to agree and get along at all costs, and they paint Jesus as a wimpy little peace guru who never stands for anything.  I don't know what Jesus they're talking about, but it isn't the Jesus of the Bible.  

     A lot of religions include Jesus as an important figure, but He isn't seen as Divine.  To Muslims, Jesus was a prophet.  To many Hindus, Jesus is a guru.  To some Buddhists, Jesus is an ascended being, having lived many previous lives.  To Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus is the archangel Michael, and the first created being.  To Mormons, Jesus is our elder spirit brother, as well as the brother of Lucifer, who achieved godhood, and paid for our sins through his sweat in the Garden of Gethsemane (not through His blood at Calvary).  To Progressive (so-called) Christians, Jesus was a carpenter in ancient Palestine who set an example, and only "became" Christ by inspiring others (and he only rose from the dead in the minds of those who follow his example. See here.).  

     It is easy to look at these other belief systems and think, "They believe in Jesus.  Maybe they're not that far off.  Maybe we should think of them as our brothers and sisters in Christ."  That sounds so kind, and a part of me would love to agree, but that just isn't biblical, or logical.  They believe in Jesus, but which Jesus?  Jesus the Lord?  Jesus, God the Son, the Son of God?  No.  None of these false belief systems can say that.  What if I had a cup of water, and I decided to call it "Jesus" and believe in that cup of water, and I told everyone, "I believe in Jesus.  See?"  Well, I'm saying the right words, that I believe in Jesus, but that cup of water is not Jesus!  The same is true of the Jesus each of these groups espouses.  

     Jesus came to save us from the penalty of our sins, by taking it upon Himself when He died on the cross, conquering it when he rose on the third day.  While He walked this earth, He showed us what God was like.  That is why Colossians 1:15 refers to Him as, the image of the invisible God.  Jesus, along with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, created all things (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17).  Jesus said that He and the Father were one (John 8:31).  He is the God of love who left His kingdom for a time, in order to bring people back with Him (John 1:14).  He is the God of creation, who calmed the storm (Mark 4:39).  He is the righteous Lord, who challenged those who perverted God's word (John 8:31-59).  He is the forgiving Savior, who delivered demoniacs, adulteresses, and others suffering with ailments, but He also urged them to sin no more (John 5:14; John 8:11).  I love how the Christian and Missionary Alliance (an evangelical denomination) calls Jesus our Savior, Sanctifier, Healer and Coming King.  That sums it up quite well.  

     A lot of people like to see Jesus as our example.  Other's see Him as a political revolutionary.  Still others, misunderstanding his interactions with the Pharisees, see Jesus as someone who just wanted to rock the boat and challenge the status quo.  These perceptions of Jesus are so limited, and not really true.  Jesus is God.  He is our only hope of eternal life.  He is the Savior.  One day, every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Philippians 2:11).  Those who deny Jesus now, or those who like to see Him in their image, will one day be humbled, and will bow their knee to the real and reigning Savior, Jesus Christ.  For many, it will be too late, and their acknowledgement of Jesus will come from hell (Philippians 2:10).  We need to be introducing others to the real Jesus before it is too late (Today is the day of salvation--Second Corinthians 6:2).  

     If you love the Lord and believe the Bible, you likely have the correct answer to the question of who Jesus is.  But here is a way many true Christians  still often reduce and minimize Jesus.  Jesus becomes a theological concept, rather than the God who saves us and wants a relationship with us.  Mind you, it is vital to have correct theology about who Jesus is.  That's what I've been saying this whole post.  But if we leave it at that, we are a lot like those Paul warned Timothy about, Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof... (Second Timothy 3:5).  Some develop an almost robotic Christian walk, reading the Bible out of duty, obeying it's claims and commands, and then going about their day in their own strength, rather than letting God speak to our hearts, and specifically seeking His guidance and will in every situation.  Jesus said in John 10:27, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.  Correct beliefs about Jesus won't just stay correct beliefs, but will lead to deeper closeness with Him.  I hold correct beliefs about George Washington--he was the first President of the United States.  He died in 1799, at age 67.  He was married to Martha from 1757 until his death.  He was the only US President who never lived in the White House (because it wasn't built until John Adams was President).  See.  I know a lot of correct info about George Washington.  But I'm not depending on good old George to get me through the day, guide my life, or make an impact on my day-to-day decisions.  Jesus isn't just a theological concept to be believed, but a Lord to know and follow, just as the disciples followed Him on earth.  You hear His voice when you read the Bible, and allow the Holy Spirit to speak truth to your heart.  

     Who do you say Jesus is?  Think hard about that before you answer.  Your eternity is resting on what you believe.  Jesus is the Image of God, our Lord, and our God.  Thomas was known as a doubter, but when he saw the risen Savior, he exclaimed, My Lord and my God!  (John 20:28).  Is that who He is to you?  Search God's word for answers, and ask Him to search your heart, to see if you have made Jesus in your life who the Bible says He is.  

Convictions

     A friend and fellow mission trip partner years ago held the conviction that we should never talk about anyone if they weren't standing right there.  Her heart was pure and right in this.  On a basic level, I agree.  However, the degree to which she took it backfired on her (and me).  We had a teacher at missionary school who was very harsh and legalistic.  He made a hurtful comment to her, personally, in front of others.  He then told all of us we were failing in our ministries.  When she and I were alone praying together that evening (we did that every night), she confided how much this teacher had hurt her feelings, and I sympathized and agreed.  That was all we said before moving on.  The next day, this sweet teammate felt so convicted that she had been wrong to express frustration about him toward me during our prayer time that she went and confessed to him, "Janelle and I were gossiping about you yesterday."  She felt better, but he was offended--and then he started targeting us both more with his meanness!  Her conviction changed a little bit after that experience.

I am pictured on this 2001 college-aged mission trip, sharing the Gospel.  My sweet teammate is not pictured, nor is the mean teacher.

     As Christians, how should we form our convictions?  What happens when we re-examine them later on and find we no longer hold those convictions?  Does it mean we were wrong?  When and how should we change our convictions?  

     As a very basic truth, our convictions must line up with the Bible.  Convictions that are directly out of God's word shouldn't change.  The Bible says not to steal, so that should be my conviction, now and always.  The same is true for anything directly from God's word.  I am going to assume you are actively trying to live by God's word, so I won't go into further detail about that.  

     Some convictions aren't technically black and white in the Bible, but are godly ideas.  Paul addressed this in Romans 14.  In that passage, he is talking about how some believers had freedom of conscience to eat meat offered to idols, and others felt it was a sin.  Paul urged them not to judge each other and not to make each other stumble, before adding, For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. (Romans 14:23b).  This clearly illustrates that sometimes, godly, Jesus-following, Bible-honoring Christians might have different convictions deep in their hearts, and they need to follow those convictions.  To go against one's conscience is a sin.  By allowing this to be in His Holy Word, God is acknowledging that not everything is cut and dried.  There are a lot of factors that might determine how someone is led in a given situation.  

     Years ago, a certain television show was a stumbling block to me.  It was a favorite, but it was a stumbling block at that time in my life.  My conviction about it grew, until I knew God was leading me to give it up, and I did.  For years, I didn't watch it.  After a little while, I barely ever thought about it.  Years later, I encountered it again, and at that different point in life, it was no longer a stumbling block to me.  I was able to enjoy it without that struggle I'd had before.  If I were to tell you what the show was, you'd probably laugh that it made me stumble at one time.  But it did, and my conscience propelled me to give it up for a while.  

     Have you ever felt strongly about something, only to discover years later that you no longer felt that way?  What reasons should we change our convictions?  When should we keep our convictions?

Here are some reasons our convictions should not change:

*The Bible is very clear about this particular issue.  God's won't change (Numbers 23:19; James 1:17), so you shouldn't either.  

*Your conscience still leads you to hold onto this conviction (Romans 14:23)

*Outrightly or publicly changing it could be a stumbling block to others (Romans 14:13)

*Outrightly or publicly changing your conviction could create a conflict of some sort (Matthew 5:9).  And yes, there are times when God leads us to make a stand that creates conflict, but be certain that is how you are led before doing so.

Note, with the last two above, you can technically still change what you believe about the conviction, but it wouldn't be wise to flaunt your new belief.  For an example, it is the conviction of many Christians that believers are required to tithe 10%, whereas others hold that this was an Old Testament command that is replaced with the New Testament teaching Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. (Second Corinthians 9:7).  If you have the conviction that you are free to give whatever amount God has led, without worrying about it being 10% or not, that is great, but flaunting that, especially if your church holds to the 10% tithe, can create conflict.  Quietly give the amount you are led, but don't create a problem for others.  

Here are some reasons to change your conviction:

*It wasn't biblical to begin with.  I used to know someone who had the conviction that you should never try to convert members of another religion to Christianity, because that seemed disrespectful.  As this person grew in the Lord, they came to see that we are called in scripture to reach everyone with the Gospel.  The conviction changed to align with God's Word.  

*The conviction itself was a cover for sin, or other character defects that need to be dealt with.  I had a friend years ago who was disobeying the prompting of the Holy Spirit in an area of surrender in her life.  She didn't surrender this area to the Lordship of Christ, even though she confided in me she knew she should.  To compensate for this sin, she developed very legalistic convictions.  She started saying it was a sin to shop at a store if there was another one that had the same product a few cents cheaper, because it was being a bad steward.  I had the "freedom" to shop at a certain grocery store, which was around the corner from my apartment at the time, so I could walk.  I had developed a relationship with the employees there, and had been able to share the Gospel.  It was worth the few pennies extra I spent there than I would have  spent by driving an extra few miles to go to another store that was slightly cheaper.  But this was a deep conviction that she confronted me for.  It wasn't a real conviction from the Lord.  It was a cover for her own lack of real surrender about something a lot more important than grocery stores.  And lest I only pick on others, I used to use convictions out of fear, and would use them to control others.  There was a time when a certain popular version of the Bible had a bad connotation to me (very long story as to why), and I refused to use it.  It was one of the main versions used in our ministry at the time (they have since switched), and I inconvenienced a lot of people by refusing to use it back then.  It wasn't a real conviction based on actual logic or reasoning.  That's the next point.

*You learn truth that undermines the reason for the conviction.  As a senior in Bible college, I did a paper on different Bible translations, and why we have so many versions in English.  It was a much more complex subject that I realized.  I came to discover that the version I was so down on wasn't a bad translation.  In light of the truth learned, I was forced to change my stance, and admit it was an emotional response, not an intellectual one.  

*God has shown you that you can let go of that conviction.  This goes with my experience of being led to give up that TV show for a while, but had freedom to watch it later.  It isn't that God's truth changes.  Where you're at in life, and the things that make you struggle change.  

     The most important convictions we hold come from God's word.  No matter what your convictions are on the non-essential issues, make sure to Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.  (Second Timothy 2:15).

Changing Persepctive, Unchanging Word

     As we grow in our Christian lives, our perspectives about some things may change.  Second Peter 3:18 says, But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ... As we get more mature in the Lord, get more involved in service, memorize more of His word, and just experience life, we sometimes get a deeper view of things.  I experienced this yesterday as I revisited a movie that I really loved in 2006.  I still enjoyed it yesterday, but my perspective has changed a little bit.  I'm going to use this movie as an example, but many things can serve as a gauge for your growth.  

     In 2006, the Christian movie Facing the Giants made history as a Christian theatrical film that actually hit theaters, and wasn't too corny.  I grew up renting cheesy Christian movies from the Christian bookstore.  None of them would have had any hope of being in theaters.  It wasn't that these movies weren't good.  Some were really wonderful and made really good points, and had decent acting.  They just didn't have the budget secular films had to work with.  Christian movies had been in theaters here and there prior to 2006, but Facing the Giants was a new standard.  It was the second film made by the Kendrick Brothers (who went on to make very successful movies, such as War Room, Overcomer, and The Forge).  Their movies are inspirational, and deeply Christian.  Truth is never compromised.  Due to the Kendrick Brothers, and others like them, Christian media is now much higher quality and much more common than it was when I was growing up.  Christians have carved out a place for themselves in mainstream entertainment.  Facing the Giants was an early success, grossing $10 million dollars against a $100,000 budget.  The Kendrick Brothers films have only grown more and more successful since then, as well as more and more professional.  

     I was 25 when I saw Facing the Giants in the mid-2000's, and I thought it was wonderful.  In case you're not familiar, the basic plot is as follows.  

     Grant Taylor is a football coach at a Christian high school.  It seems everything is against him.  His team has a losing record.  The players' fathers are pressuring the principal to fire him.  His car constantly breaks down (and he can't afford a new one).  His house has a terribly foul smell that he and his wife Brooke are unable to find the source of.  On top of all of that, Grant and Brooke are struggling with infertility.  The discouragement is portrayed well, and the audience can easily relate to Grant (even if they haven't been in his exact circumstance, they can relate to being discouraged, at the point where only God can help).  The lowest point in the film comes when Grant learns that he is the cause of their infertility, and then he goes back to his office at the school to find the fathers meeting with the principal to try to get him fired.  He comes home, and he and his wife cry together, and it is a real tear-jerker.  They are at the end of their rope, and only the Lord can deliver them.  The next scene shows Grant really wrestling with the Lord, reading his Bible, and crying out to God.  He eventually concludes he is going to give God his best in all things, and leave the results up to Him.  So far, so good.

     The rest of the film shows how Grant's commitment to obedience impacts his team.  Their attitude becomes, "If we win, we'll praise God, and if we lose, we'll praise God."  They begin playing better as a team, and have some wins.  A revival happens at the school, and one of the toughest boys on the team is saved.  This boy's father (who had previously wanted Grant fired) is now deeply touched by Grant's influence on his son, and ends up buying him a new truck to replace his clunker (but does it anonymously).  Grant gets a raise.  Grant and Brooke finally discover the terrible stench in their home was a dead rodent, and they get rid of it.  The football team ends up making it to the state championship, and face a team called the Giants.  Long story very short...they win.  It isn't that simple.  There are a lot of suspenseful moments leading up to this.  At the very end, Brooke reveals that she is pregnant, so they are able to have children after all!  The final scene shows Two Years Later, and shows Brooke lovingly looking in on Grant, playing with their toddler, and she pats her again-pregnant stomach, and in the background, we see two more championship trophies, revealing that their team has continued to win.  This is a basic synopsis, without sharing some of the secondary plots and characters.  

     At 25, I was deeply touched by this movie.  I knew discouragement, and the feeling of being at that moment where only a touch from the Lord can help.  I knew there were those spiritual moments where God seemed to minister to my spirit (the movie portrays these well).  There are several very touching scenes that really ministered to me, and still do.  

     At 25, I was single, really wanting to meet that "right guy" God had for me.  I was really seeking God for His will for my life.  The desperation I felt was similar to Grant and Brooke's infertility desperation in the movie, and I had to wrestle like they did.  It wasn't just that I wanted to marry.  My heart and spirit had been crushed in relationships, and it made me feel invalidated.  Everywhere I turned, I got different advice (most of it unasked for!).  I knew I was supposed to be married, and it broke my heart when it wasn't happening.  I knew I needed to live by faith and not by sight--and that eventually led me to my husband Walter.  This movie really gave that encouragement.  I also knew discouragement, followed by those spiritual moments where God intervenes.  I knew that I wanted everything I did to count for eternity, as the movie urges.  So at 25, I related to the message.  And I will add that I still do relate to those parts.

     I am no longer 25.  I am no longer single.  God has led me onward from where I was at that time.  While this movie (which I watched yesterday for the first time in a while) still encourages me, there are some points I now have a small issue with.  Small.  I obviously still agree with the truths taught.  

     I find it a little predictable.  Things are going really badly for these poor characters.  They hit their lowest point.  They seek the Lord, and then things turn around drastically.  Every problem is resolved by the end, including the infertility.  While it is done beautifully, it might have been more powerful to show only some of the problems being resolved, and them still wrestling but trusting with the others.  Or, maybe it should have shown them pursue adoption instead of Brooke being pregnant.  As someone who has struggled with infertility, I find their sudden turnaround in this area disingenuous to those of us who really have wrestled with it, and still didn't get pregnant.  

     My biggest gripe is that the doctor Grant sees tells him his options for having children are IVF and adoption.  When Grant says they can't afford IVF, the doctor says adoption is just as expensive.  That really bugs me.  If you are adopting through a private agency, then, yes, it can be expensive.  But if you are adopting through the foster system (or the Cherokee Nation, like we did) the cost of adoption can be little to nothing.  We paid $27 for the new birth certificate, but nothing more.  We even get paid a small monthly stipend (and he is 100% adopted--our son, but we still get a stipend).  So, implying adoption is always costly is a misleading message, and may discourage viewers from considering it.  God didn't allow us to have our own children, but He led us on this beautiful path of adoption, and it has been just as redemptive as Brooke's pregnancy in the movie.  I think the way it is handled in the movie kind of gives adoption a bad name.  I know that wasn't their intent at all.  I also think God can meet us in our discouragement, and lead us on to victory, even if we don't always see these extreme wins.  Just because you gave it to the Lord doesn't mean your team will start scoring championships, or that someone will give you a new car.  Sometimes, God meets us in quieter ways, or He does these bigger things over a longer period of time.  

     Where I'm at in life now has given me perspective I didn't have years ago.  Sometimes, revisiting a book, series, movie, etc that has been meaningful to you can help you see how far God has brought you.  You can still glean from what ministered to you in the past, but also see how far you've come.  These things don't technically change, but you have changed, and you can see it by how you now relate to these books, shows, movies, etc.  

     On a deeper note, God's word never changes, and you will never outgrow it.  You can read a passage that ministered to you years ago, just when you needed it, and you will remember God's faithfulness to you.  However, God might open even deeper revelations of Himself to you that you are now ready for.  That is how His word is different than a movie or book.  You have the Author living in your heart.  John 16:13 says, When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future.  

     It's wonderful when God uses people to create media (books, movies, audio programs, etc) that minister His word to us.  It is also wonderful how we grow in our Christian lives, and how we can gauge it through revisiting these things.  No matter what, though, only the Bible can be counted on 100%.  We'll never get beyond what it can teach us, in the hands of the Holy Spirit.  

     I am thankful for the Kendrick Brothers, and how God has used their films to minister to many.  I know their integrity to God's word and portrayal of real-to-life people facing real-to-life problems will continue to touch hearts and lives.  Take the biblical truth from these sources, and let Him teach you.  Always go back to His word. 

(De)nomination, Part 2

     This is kind of a follow-up on my post (De)nomination, from May 24, 2020.  You can read this without reading that one, but if you're interested in my thoughts at that time, you can go back and look at it.

     A lot of churches nowadays claim to be non-denominational.  Even churches that are affiliated with a denomination are routinely taking the denomination out of the name on the sign outside the church.  What does this mean?  Why is this happening?  Is it good, bad, or neither?  What does it mean to be part of a denomination anyway?  If we can answer that, we can answer another the question of what it means to be non-denominational.  

     When someone asks, "What denomination is this church?" they might be asking one of two questions.  Most commonly, what they really mean is, "What does this church believe?  With what vein of church history does this church most closely align?"  They want to know if this church is more like a Baptist church, or a Pentecostal church, or a Presbyterian church, or a Methodist church, or something else.  They know what these different churches teach and believe, and want to know what they're getting into if they visit this church, so they ask for the denomination.  However, the second question that could be intended when asking "What denomination is the church? is, "What hierarchy is this church part of?"  When people ask the question, meaning the first definition of it ("What does this church believe?  With what vein of church history does this church most closely align?") people will commonly give the answer to the second question, "Oh, we're not answerable to any higher authority of churches.  We're independent."  Even though this sounds like an answer, when the question was worded, "What denomination is this church?" it might not actually be the answer the person meant to ask for.  I will give a few examples, in order of the "non-denominational-ness."  This is not an exhaustive list of denominations by any means.  It is an illustration of the progression between completely independent churches and very srong denominations, and all that comes between.  

     Woodland Hills Christian Church, in Alexander, Arkansas, is a lively little church.  They partner with our ministry.  We have been so blessed by this small congregation.  They are Bible-believing and very evangelistic, and are constantly seeing people saved and discipled.  I hold them in high regard, as my son was saved at their Vacation Bible School.  They are non-denominational.  In their case, they are 100% independent, not in any way affiliated with any similar churches (though they have friendships with many churches in the community).  They are not accountable to any sort of hierarchy.  They're not part of any group at all.  They are as non-denominational as it gets.  Their beliefs about the specifics of the faith (things Christians may differ on) can be ascertained by asking members and leadership.  There are many such churches that have no affiliation whatsoever, and are pretty much free to do as they please.  They come in all stripes of belief, and the only way to know what a truly non-denominational church believes is to ask them (or look on their website if they have one).  

My son Tommy received Christ as his Personal Lord and Savior with children's minister Stacey Schenck, of Woodland Hills Christian Church.

     I am originally from Southern California.  The biggest influence in Christianity there has been the Calvary Chapel movement, which began in Orange County in the late 60's and early 70's.  This revival is depicted in the 2023 movie Jesus Revolution.  My father was strongly influenced by this revival at the time.  This was a movement of the Holy Spirit, independent of denominational oversight.  In fact, founder Chuck Smith had previously been a pastor in the Foursquare denomination.  This work of the Lord led him away from some of the denominational requirements that had been placed on him.  He had more freedom to follow the Spirit's leading.  This ministry spawned hundreds of other Calvary Chapel churches all over the world.  Other groups have split from Calvary Chapel and started their own movements, such as Vineyard.  Calvary claims to be non-denominational.  While it is true they have a high level of autonomy, they are not as independent or non-denominational as Woodland Hills in the previous paragraph.  They are affiliated.  They have a statement of beliefs that must be adhered to in order for a church be become a Calvary Chapel.  They have their own Bible college and conferences.  They are known for strong biblical teaching, and going through the Bible verse-by-verse, teaching the "full counsels of God" (Acts 20:27). Considering how Chuck Smith left his previous denomination to follow God's leading into Calvary Chapel, it is understandable why the title of being "non-denominational" would sound attractive to Calvary Chapel participants.  However, they are not really non-denominational in the sense of being unaffiliated, or outside of a theological vein of church history.  They do have an affiliation with each other.  They didn't start existing in a vacuum.  They hold basic evangelical beliefs that most Christians share, and they tend not to "major on the minors" so to speak, but if you get really into the nitty-gritty, they do hold some specific beliefs that are distinct.  Chuck Smith wrote a wonderful book in 2001 called Calvary Chapel Distinctives, which explores some of the theological positions that set them apart.  You can order it here.  Also worth noting, Calvary Chapel is the most notable of non-denominational affiliations, but it is not the only one.  I already mentioned Vineyard Churches.  Also, other groups, such as the Independent Fundamental Churches of American (or the IFCA), are affiliations that would probably claim to be non-denominational.  

The Calvary dove, the logo of Calvary Chapel, found on many of their church signs, and on many car bumpers in Southern California

     My husband and I are part of the Southern Baptist Convention.  This, as well as other Baptist bodies, usually admit to being denominational.  If you were to attend our congregation, Immanuel Baptist Church, and asked someone, "What denomination is this church?" You would be told that we are Southern Baptist.   The fact that we are more likely to admit to being a denomination is really the only way we are less "non-denominational" than groups like Calvary Chapel.  Our affiliations with each other and "higher ups" are similar to Calvary Chapel's affiliations.  The real difference is that "denomination" isn't a dirty word to most Baptists (though there are some who would still deny being a denomination).  We are autonomous, and could choose to leave the denomination at any time.  The building belongs to the local church, not the Southern Baptist Convention.  Churches vary in structural government, with some being more congregational and others being more board-led or pastor-led.  Southern Baptist Churches adhere to the statement of faith known as The Baptist Faith and Message (you may read the 2000 edition--the newest reiteration of it--here..  Other Baptist groups, such as the American Baptist Church, USA, have their beliefs on their websites.  For many, the term Baptist helps to explain what that church probably believes.  Baptist is often a belief system more than a hierarchy.  There are independent Baptist churches with little to no affiliation, as well as more organized Baptist denominations.  They're not going to be exactly the same, but there are some things that most churches that call themselves Baptist have in common, most notably believer's baptism by immersion only.  Most Baptist also believe in eternal security (once-saved, always-saved), though there are Free-Will Baptist and General Baptists who do not share this belief in eternal security. 

Our church, Immanuel Baptist Church, Little Rock, Arkansas.

     I call myself a lifelong Baptist, but for a few years, my husband and I were actually members of a church that was part of the Christian and Missionary Alliance.  This is a wonderful denomination.  Theologically, they are very similar to Calvary Chapel.  They are evangelical and very mission-minded.  They don't "major on the minors" often, although they do have their beliefs, most notably praying for the sick.  Like Calvary Chapel, they were started as a result of a movement, and for many years, they refused to be considered a denomination, but eventually acknowledged that this was what they were.  They are autonomous, but have their specifics, including their missionaries, college, and seminary.

Walter and me, 2017, at our Christian and Missionary Alliance church in Vermillion, South Dakota.  If we had not moved, we would still attend that church.

     There are other denominations that have stricter affiliations for their congregations.  One is the United Methodists.  As that denomination has become more open to liberal theology, some of the more conservative churches have wanted to leave.  But, unlike Baptists, they are not autonomous, and can't simply leave.  In 2019, some guidelines were given that made it possible for congregations to leave the denomination before the end of 2023, and retain their building.  It wasn't a simple process, and the churches that chose to do it really had to takes some steps, but it was made possible.  Between 2019 and 2023, about a fourth of Untied Methodist Churches in the United States left the denomination.  Our ministry has been partnering with two such churches, one of which joined the new Global Methodist denomination, and the other of which has chosen to remain unaffiliated.  Without this provision, leaving the denomination would have cost these congregations their buildings and resources.  Many other larger denominations exercise that kind of leadership over local congregations.  Some similar denominations operate very differently on this.  For example, the conservative group Presbyterian Churches of America (PCA), operate with the congregations owning their property, whereas in the more liberal denomination, the in Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), the denomination owns the building.  All major denominations have their own teachings, approved seminaries, and specific traditions.  How important these specifics are depends on the denomination itself, and the individual church.  

     If a person asks you what denomination your church is, before you say, "Oh, we're non-denominational" make sure you know what they're actually asking.  Most people who strive to be non-denominational want to get away from the hierarchy (and I can't say I blame them), but that is not usually what the person is asking.  They want to know what your church believes.  What can they expect if they attend a service there?  When someone comes to your church, will they see a traditional, liturgical service with organ music and a pastor in a robe, or a casual service with upbeat praise songs and people lifting their hands?  Do they baptize infants with sprinkling, or believers by immersion?  Do people speak in tongues?  Do they they give an alter call?  Do people lay hands on the sick and pray for them?  Is it open or closed communion?  What does your church believe about the essential doctrines of the faith (and maybe some of the non-essentials as well)?  These are what people often really mean when they ask you what denomination you are.  It is okay to say, "We're not officially affiliated with a denomination, but this is what we believe..."  It is also okay to say, "We're Presbyterian," or "We're Baptist" or "We're Calvary Chapel," or...whatever you are!  There is no shame either way, but make sure you know what they are actually asking.  Even the truly non-denominational churches, like Woodland Hills, didn't just start existing in a vacuum.  They are part of God working out church history.  They all have beliefs that align with truths believed by Christians since the book of Acts.  Most non-denominational churches are at least similar to a specific church tradition.  Many are similar to Baptist, or Pentecostals.  People aren't usually making a judgment about your church's hierarchy.  They really want to know where you fit theologically and what to expect if they were to visit.  

     So, which is more godly and spiritual, denominations or being non-denominational?  The answer is neither.  It really depends.  Being part of an affiliation (whether or not you use the word denomination) can be good for accountability and support.  On the other hand, being completely independent can allow more freedom to follow the Holy Spirit's leading.  I know people on both sides.  One Christian woman told me she had been spiritually abused in a non-denominational church that had no accountability, and she would never again attend a church that wasn't part of a well-established denomination.  Others have told me that they believed denominations stifled God's work, and they refused to go to a church that was part of a denomination.  

     Some see denominations as divisions between Christians.  That can happen, but it shouldn't.  When we lived in Albuquerque, I taught at a Christian school that was affiliated with a Calvary Chapel, and their statement of belief included these words: We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only their overemphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ. This is an understandable concern, and there are many unaffiliated churches that are solid and biblical.  But couldn't the same statement be said about the non-denomination trend?  I have met non-denominational Christians who were more divisive about it than those of official denominations.  No church type is immune from division.  If Jesus is our Lord, and we agree about what is very clear in scripture, then we can agree to disagree about some of these secondary matters of faith.  As a Baptist, I attended a Bible college that was largely influenced by the Assemblies of God (a Pentecostal denomination).  My husband and I are home missionaries with an interdenominational ministry that works with all sorts of Bible-believing Christians of different backgrounds and church traditions.  I also teach at a Christian school that leans toward the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition.  I have been blessed and ministered to by all of these different Jesus-followers.  They have sharpened me in my own faith, and I hope I have done the same for them.  

     Everyone needs to Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.  (Second Timothy 2:15).  We all need to be in God's word, and if we see things in our churches and church affiliations that don't line up with what we read in the Bible, we need to challenge that.  Jesus had a lot of diversity in His followers.  The early church had people of Jewish, Hellenist, and Gentile backgrounds.  All of them had vastly different traditions prior to coming to Jesus, and even somewhat after, and yet they all believed the same thing about Christ and salvation, and we will see them all in Heaven.  Can't we accept a little diversity among our brothers and sisters today?  As long as they are walking in biblical teaching and integrity, we can't fault them for having different preferences and traditions than ours.  

     My favorite YouTube channel about Christian denominations (and non-denominations) is called Ready to Harvest.  They do not give strong opinions.  Simple facts are stated, and the viewer can make his or her own decision about whether or not they agree with a given church or denomination.  They put out a recent video about the very subject of non-denominationalism, and I will share it below.   I think you will like it. 

https://youtu.be/OtZ07UhBg7M?si=azCLPWNCF8SSptTG