The Sharlet Letter
Jeff Sharlet of TheRevealer.org recently published an article in Rolling Stone entitled, The Young and the Sexless. The article discusses young Christians and abstinence, and though it’s an interesting read, it is largely misleading. The sub-headline reads, “A new generation of young men and women is embracing celibate life.”
Celibate has a very specific meaning: giving up sexual relationships (including marriage) for life. That certainly isn’t what these young people plan to do. I realize that such a criticism is pedantic, but it certainly sets the stage for the rest of the article. Sharlet begins:
What if the true face of the Christian right in America is not that of Dr. James Dobson or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson; not that of an aging, comb-over preacher orange with pancake makeup, smiling orca rows of ungodly white teeth on The O’Reilly Factor or Hardball? Nor that of spittle-flecked Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas, roaring that God hates fags? What if the true face of the Christian right is, instead, that of a twenty-four-year-old religious-studies graduate student at New York University?
This introduction is telling, and the entire peice builds from here. Sharlet argues that “Chastity is a new organizing principle of the Christian right”, in other words, politically motivated. Though he certainly has a case by describing a segment of the “Christian right” this way, highlighting abstinence in a political context ignores the majority of young Christians who practice abstinence for fundamentally moral reasons - the way they have been since Christ reiterated the sanctity of marriage in Matthew 19. There’s nothing new about it.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. of The Christian Post responded to Sharlet’s article in a similar vein:
When Dunbar describes sexual abstinence as a form of rebellion, Sharlet jumps to the political sphere. As he sees it, conservative Christians are now pushing the issue of sexual abstinence in order to make “every young man and woman part of an elite virgin corps.
Clearly, Sharlet hasn’t been hanging around conservative Christians for very long. Anyone who thinks that the idea of sexual abstinence is a recent development tied to a political agenda within the Christian right just hasn’t been in touch with conservative Christianity.
Mohler is surprisingly fair, admitting that, “at times…[Sharlet] reveals interesting insights and incisive analysis… seem[ing] to understand the cultural awkwardness that comes with a commitment to sexual abstinence.” However, it seems to me that Sharlet’s apparent “understanding” and general empathetic tone has to do with those featured in the story, and not because of any value Sharlet sees in abstinence. The interesting thing about this article - perhaps the very reason it made it to the pages of Rolling Stone - is the presentation of these young men as unambiguous hypocrites. In his response, Mohler seems to miss this point completely, offering his grossly understated description of Matt Dunbar and his friends:
These young men are not total ascetics. They enjoy food and other pleasures, but they see sex as belonging to an entirely different world.
Sharlet is more honest about matters:
Matt Dunbar is a handsome young man, though his face is still ruddy with acne. He has rounded cheeks, a soul patch beneath his lips and soft eyes that hold yours like he trusts you. He’s not a prude. He will say the word “f—,” but he will never, not even in the wedding bed he hopes God has prepared for his future, embody it as a verb. He will make Christian love.
Let’s face it, Rolling Stone has an image to portray and a lifestyle to cultivate. Christianity has no place in its editorial strategy. Sharlet is a smart guy and makes sure to tell us that Matt claims to be fighting a “spiritual war against the world, against ’sensuality’” and is then quick to note:
It’s a never-ending war, and not one that can be fought alone. Which is why virgins like Dunbar tend to travel in packs, to church and to Bible studies but also to parties and even to bars. Dunbar and his friends help one another stay “pure,” which they consider “authentic.”
Authentic? I hope and pray that true Christians are as appalled by this irony as the staff at Rolling Stone are likely amused. Non-Christians don’t even bother with an attempt to say party- and bar-hopping are activities designed to help one “stay pure.” They certainly don’t buy it from a Christian’s mouth. I’m reminded of Neal Stephenson’s Diamond Age and his descripton of hypocrisy:
“. . .this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticize others’ shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticize another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behavior - you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another.”
That is exactly what Sharlet and Rolling Stone have done, and “Christians” such as Matt Dunbar are poster children for their message. These young men are doing nothing more than setting themselves up as targets; modern Christians that want to tout certain parts of scriptural morality while fully imbibing “mainstream culture.” Dunbar may be right when it comes to sex and it’s place, but he seems to have overlooked an equally important admonition:
If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you (John 15:19).
Sharlet points out that their church - predominantly single men and women under 30 - is growing so fast that they won’t commit to real estate. “Not having sex means talking about it constantly,” he says, and then cites sermon titles such as “Desperate Sex Lives” and “Sex & The City.” This embodies their serious problems. The very titles of what would and should be Bible lessons are, instead, plagiarized from mainstream, sex-driven culture. It’s obvious that the purpose and desire of these youngsters - though impossible - is to serve two masters. Once again, Sharlet soaks up the inconsistency like a sponge:
Church takes place on a stage set for a play. Half of every service features the Journey band, a competent ensemble that sets hymns to grunge and emo arrangements. During my visit, I can’t take my eyes off the three female backup singers, especially a redhead on the right, swinging her hips in loose cargo pants that are nonetheless tight in the a–. She’s braless and grooving, way too sexy for church, shooting a single finger over her head — the “One Way” Jesus sign Billy Graham embraced more than thirty years ago.
Ted Olsen, of Christianity Today says that it’s about evangelism and “speaking the language of the day.” The problem with such an analysis is that evangelism never shows up in this story. Dunbar and his cronies never highlight the fact that they avoid fornication because it is morally wrong and they want to please God. It’s presented as almost entirely selfish - a temporary sacrifice for the sole reward of incredible sex. Have they forgotten the real reward? Sharlet illuminates this sex-driven religiosity in a way that sounds eerily like the promises of Mohammed:
Which is it? Is sexual chastity an old tradition, or a new counter-culture? Both, of course, but not simply because “the culture” has shifted radically left. . . . They’re not simply looking backward to the golden age that never was — they’re inventing a whole new narrative of paradise, one with sex at its heart.
The article is summed up with what Sharlet’s been getting at the entire time. He says, “Like the fundamentalists of old, today’s Christian conservatives define themselves as apart from the world, and yet the modern movement aims to enjoy its fruits. (emphasis mine)” Can Dunbar and the other “Christian hipsters” possibly be happy about this portrayal? Perhaps it’s exactly what they want - the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too scenario - iced with the notion of purity by their adherence to a single tenet. It seems they have forgotten (or maybe they have never learned) that sex is not the only sin.
- Politics, The Church | Time: 8:11 am (UTC+8)
Your points are well taken, but don’t judge my fellow interviewees and I merely by what was quoted. You have to consider the various levels of editing involved here. Jeff and I talked for four hours alone — in our first conversation. His notes of that conversation were edit #1. What he included in the story was at least edit #2. And that was long before it got to Rolling Stone, where it clearly went through further edits as well.
I can’t speak for the others, but “pure” isn’t a self-descriptive label I use with a straight face. Readers of my blog remark more often on the tone of wry self-mockery for my failings than they accuse me of self-righteousness (though I invite an honest response, whatever it may be).
But if it takes public foolishness to talk to people at parties about Jesus and the Christian sexual ethic (which is where such conversations most often happen for me), I’ll gladly take a little mockery. By no means is all my party-going noble or booze-free (though I do try to minimize the buzz), but the more evangelistic conversations I’ve had at bars and parties, the more I start to wonder if that’s why Jesus frequented that scene. After all, if he was going far enough with meeting us on our turf to take on a body and come to earth, why not go all the way and meet us with our beers and burgers?
To me, this article merely started a conversation. It may have done so somewhat crudely, but sometimes a little shock-n-awe is needed to get past the cliches.
Comment by Anna Broadway — July 7, 2005 @ 12:00 am
Anna, I really appreciate your comment, and I’m glad you stopped by to read. I completely understand the editorial process - I kept that in the back of my mind when I read the story. Notice I specifically stated that Rolling Stone had nothing to gain by promoting virtuous lifestyles. I didn’t expect that you or your fellow interviewees would be represented with complete accuracy.
On the other hand, the aspects that concern(ed) me most were reiterated by your comment; that is, the justification of certain lifestyles or activities as long as “evangelism” is the underlying goal. You’re right, sometimes the gospel requires Christians to withstand mockery and be perceived as foolish. Paul said that “the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:18). If you can say that “not all of your party-going is noble”, then isn’t it something that you should avoid altogether? After all, 1 Thessalonians 5:22 says, “abstain from all appearance of evil.”
I take particular issue with the comparison you draw with modern bar-hopping and Jesus’ interaction with mankind. Jesus never sinned, of course, and Paul says that it is sinful to say “Let us do evil, that good may come” (Romans 3:7). Obviously Jesus felt the same way. I don’t think there is scriptural evidence to say that Jesus frequented any “scene.” Sure, he was criticized for eating with sinners and tax collectors, but a day-time meal is far from comparable with bar-hopping, don’t you think? I’m not one for the “WWJD” mode of thinking, but for the sake of the conversation let’s consider translating Christ’s first coming to 2005 AD. Could you honestly imagine him adopting the metropolitan night-life in an attempt to evangelize? I don’t know of any passages that would support such an idea. The secular bar and party scene has a specific focus, and that is intoxication, often lewd conversation and dancing, and ultimately sex. It is simply not a place for Christians.
Let’s stand outside of a bar and plead with people to come to terms with their lives. Let’s point out to them that the revelry and promiscuity of night-life is sin, and will bring them nothing but heartache. This is the shock-and-awe that the world needs. How do we expect to rescue sinners from death if we show acceptance of sin by participating ourselves?
Comment by Jacob — July 7, 2005 @ 9:02 pm
For clarity’s sake, I should probably distinguish the two points we’re discussing here. One is about the morality/virtue/wisdom of certain lifestyle choices and behaviors (specifically as manifest by myself and the other sources in Mr. Sharlet’s article), and the other is about the Christian call to participate in bringing the Kingdom of God about here on earth — specifically, what it takes to accomplish that. I have suggested that a) not only are some of the lifestyles choices alluded to in the article not inherently sinful, but b) they may actually foster evangelism in some contexts (evangelism being part of the Kingdom of God activity mentioned above). I think we disagree on the nature and permissability of the lifestyle choices, hence we disagree about their role in evangelism. I am not at all suggesting that willfully sinful behavior is justified by the redemptive end it may produce through God’s gracious intervention.
That said, I take some issue with your phrase “bar-hopping” as it does not entirely account for the type of social behavior I had in mind. Note that I referred to my own habit of party-going and to conversations I’ve had at bars. My point here is not intended to be semantic or abstruse. There is a difference between the settings or events themselves — bars, parties — and the mode through which one engages them. I am assuming that neither bars, parties, nor the presence and consumption of alcohol in social settings is inherently sinful — although I would have a hard time calling a strip bar morally neutral. I am assuming that it is possible for friends and acquaintances to gather in a bar or party in someone’s home for the purpose of relaxing, enjoying each other’s company and conversation, and celebrating something such as a birthday or national holiday. For all practical purposes, where are such gatherings to occur? Does the presence of alcohol render them sinful? I have on many occasions, in good conscience, participated in such gatherings, and that is largely the context I had in mind when I referred to my “party-going” and “conversations I’ve had in bars.” However, your phrase bar-hopping has a different connotation — a more frenetically paced night of revelry where the purpose is particularly consumptive and escapist, and constant escalation of the intensity is attractive.
As to evangelism, I am extremely doubtful that your proposed sort of “shock-and-awe” will in most cases (particularly in response to the bar-hopping behavior you mention) prove successful. Moralizing condemnation is not shocking any more; most simply find it obnoxious (I probably would too, even if stone sober). Jacob, with all due respect, I see little openness toward Biblical condescension to the listener in your suggestion. Jesus fed people he knew would never understand his message or listen to what he was saying. He met with Nicodemus at night because the Pharisee felt more comfortable under cover of dark. He provided more and better wine at the wedding in Cana. Rarely did he start with a statement on people’s sin; he started with sacrificial love and by meeting them and their needs where they were at. What if instead of preaching you started offering free rides home to the drunks at your local bar so they didn’t drive or have to take a cab? That kind of unconditional sacrifice would be shocking, and it might create an opening for the deeper conversation you want to have.
You have to start where they’re at, and that means where their hearts are at. I have found that often the context of a bar relaxes someone enough that we can have a surprisingly real and deep conversation about the larger issues in life and what they’re struggling with. My willingness to breath someone else’s secondhand smoke, to engage the ideas couched in their crass language, to slowly sip a Guinness with them, enables a conversation I couldn’t have if I insisted they come to me on my terms. Sacrificial, gospel love isn’t about what makes me comfortable; it’s about what shows the person my commitment to love him or precisely when doing so proves painful and inconvenient.
Comment by Anna Broadway — July 8, 2005 @ 4:21 pm
Anna said, “Rarely did he start with a statement on people’s sin; he started with sacrificial love and by meeting them and their needs where they were at.”
I have to disagree with this. Jesus message was fundamentally summarized by the statement, “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.” He started with the message of repentance from sin first and then he moved on to deal with people’s needs. This is fundamentally important to understanding the gospel. Repentance is primal in engaging someone with the message of Jesus and the kingdom because ultimately the failure of man to repent is what forms the barrier between man and God. That was why Jesus’ vicarious sacrifice was needed in the first place. Yes, Jesus offered love and he had a great desire to help people with their legitimate needs (not their lusts) and in that way many followed him. But let us not forget that many stopped following him as well when he started preaching the “harder” messages of the gospel. At one point all he had left were the twelve and he turned to them and said, “Are you going to leave me too?” (see John 6:60-67). I dare say that many modern day Christians would have told Jesus to tone his message down a bit at that point. But he couldn’t do that because, after all, it was the truth that would set the people free (John 8:32).
I agree that sacrificial love must be practiced and that many of us don’t do it enough, but I don’t agree that it must be practiced at the expense of compromising the message of repentance and neither did Jesus.
BTW, I have visited your web site, Anna, and I applaud your efforts at getting out the message of abstinence.
Comment by Kevin — July 8, 2005 @ 6:43 pm
You write that I ignore “the majority of young Christians who practice abstinence for fundamentally moral reasons - the way they have been since Christ reiterated the sanctity of marriage in Matthew 19. There’s nothing new about it.”
With all due respect, this is statement is a factual mess.
1. What’s your source for the “majority” of young Christians? I don’t believe Barna has compiled that report.
2. Saying that I ignore such people, if they do exist, misses the point that most of the men and women in the story practice chastity for self-declared moral reasons; my argument was that they’ve been politically exploited by activists such as Leslee Unruh of Abstinence Clearinghouse, and political figures such as Karl Rove.
3. Your scripture history — oy. First, Christ didn’t “say” anything in Matthew — Matthew wrote that Gospel well after Christ died. Secondly, nobody started practicing chastity because Christ said so — Jews already practiced chastity, at least in theory. Love Christ all you want, but he didn’t invent chastity. Finally, all historical evidence points to the contrary of your assertion. A few early communities of followers of Christ (remember, they weren’t “Christians” until later) did start practicing radical chastity as an interpretation of Christ’s, and Paul’s, message — so radical, in fact, that they left their families. As the historian Peter Brown — acknowledged by believing and non-believing biblical scholars as the authority on this subject — points out, Paul’s letter to the Corinthians was designed to DISCOURAGE such radical chastity, on the grounds that it was upsetting the social order.
Thereafter, chastity became a fairly minor part of the Christian program for several centuries. Very few Christians would have practiced it, even before marriage. There have been revivals of such morality, but they’ve been brief. Take the most famous American examples, the Puritans and the Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s. During both periods, out of wedlock birth rates were anywhere from 10 to 20%. And those are just the pregnancies.
I’m not arguing against chastity — not here, anyway — but rather, the self-righteous assumption that most Christians really practice it.
Finally, as for all your assumptions about what Rolling Stone was trying to do — I have no idea. This was the first piece I’ve written for them, and I talked to my editor briefly twice before I handed it in. There were no instructions about tone.
You’re right to be suspicious of corporate media, but don’t trip over into paranoia and conspiracy theory.
Comment by Jeff Sharlet — July 8, 2005 @ 7:32 pm
Jacob said: “Could you honestly imagine him adopting the metropolitan night-life in an attempt to evangelize?”
Well… yes, actually, but I wouldn’t word it that way. The Pharisees could not believe that Jesus ate and dialogged with the social rejects of the day. The difference is in your choice of wording. “Adopting” versus “engaging”. There’s a very big gulf between the two.
Kevin said: “He (Jesus) started with the message of repentance from sin first and then he moved on to deal with people’s needs. This is fundamentally important to understanding the gospel.”
I don’t see that with the adulteress. Christ’s very first words to her, after saving her life from certain (deserved by Jewish law) death were, “Where are your accusers? Neither do I accuse you.” Yes, he commissions her to sin no more from that point on. But you’ll notice that He doesn’t even ask her to repent for what she had done that day, which deserved punishment. No sinner’s prayer there!
It seems to me, then, that an appeal to grace is a legitimate approach to evangelism.
Comment by Rob — July 9, 2005 @ 12:33 am
Anna said “My willingness to breath someone else’s secondhand smoke, to engage the ideas couched in their crass language, to slowly sip a Guinness with them, enables a conversation I couldn’t have if I insisted they come to me on my terms.”
There is no major problem with breathing someone’s second hand smoke, but by simply sipping on a Guinness you are automatically drawing fuzzy grey lines for your potential evangelism target. In first Corinthians 8 Paul writes,
“Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if any one sees you, a man of knowledge, at table in an idol’s temple, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.”
Paul is addressing the exact issue we are discussing, something that is not inherently wrong but is nontheless a point of confusion for non or new Christians. If you went to go into a bar ordered a Dr.Pepper and then began conversations with people about the message of Christ your testimony as a Christian would be that much stronger. In fact I am willing to bet that you would get to tell more people about Christ. I have been in that situation, and I know people are very interested when you are in a bar and not drinking. I know you must have thought about this before, because I am also willing to bet that you have had to explain the subtle differences between drinking and getting drunk on several occasions in your bar mission work. I applaud you for taking such a public stand and opening yourself up to all of this criticism. But Anna you cannot limit God by saying that having a beer lets you accomplish work that God could not facilitate otherwise.
Comment by Mark Josephson — July 9, 2005 @ 2:46 pm
Actually, Mark, it’s not that hard to explain to people the difference between having a couple beers and getting drunk. Anyone who does the latter consistently knows on the basis of sheer numbers whether you’re drinking as part of a social scene and for relaxation — or to get drunk. Honestly, I find that people get the tea-totaller approach more than they do moderation. For the tea-totaller tends to take a similar view of alcohol’s power to that of the drunkard. The former wishes to avoid it at all cost, the latter to exploit it. What I have had people marvel at is that I am open to drinking, but able to stop after only a couple drinks.
In any case, how is saying that having a beer lets me accomplish work “that God could not facilitate otherwise” (which was not my original claim, incidentally) any more a limitation than what you’re saying — that God cannot accomplish work in the presence of beer, or is somewhat limited when I consome it? Don’t forget, the people one might reach in a bar are not just the other patrons.
As it happens, the context where I did the most bar “ministry” (to use a crude phrase) was an Irish pub where I studied several nights of the week during grad school. Plenty of the conversations I had with people wound up being sort of one-off talks, to my dismay. A more exciting development was the relationships I was able to develop with the bar staff — particularly the women — and some of the musicians who regularly performed there. The consistency of those interactions did a lot to build the kind of rapport within which you’re able to discuss spiritual matters with a person. And part of that credibility is ordering alcohol. A Dr. Pepper costs $2 if the bar is stingy, but sometimes as little as $1.50. What are you going to tip on that? Surely not the dollar you might on a beer.
I’m not saying you should drink alcohol in bars if you’re uncomfortable with it, but don’t forget your business there is equally a chance to witness to the wait staff as it is the other patrons. Bearing that in mind, if you’re going to get a dirt-cheap drink while filling a table or bar-seat that might be otherwise occupied by a far better-paying customer — and to order that drink in the name of Jesus — be prepared to tip your server generously. Otherwise you seriously undermine your potential witness to that waiter or waitress.
But in closing, I want to ask you — and any others who may share your concerns — why is it so important to you to challenge and confront Christians who enjoy more liberty than you in areas where the Bible expressly refuses to take a stand other than general guidelines (like don’t get drunk)? Why is the tendency toward self-righteous piety and legalism — and even, neglect of sacrifical ministry to the lost that meets them where they’re at — which tendency more-conversative interpretations can be prone to — why is that somehow less sinful than the excesses those who enjoy their God-given liberty may be vulnerable to? I don’t know where you’re at with God; you answer to Him, not to me, but sometimes I get really tired of the ease with which more-conservative Christians criticize and challenge those of us who have a drink now and then or do other things that fall outside the purview of what you consider acceptable. If it’s a fairly clear grey area, why spend so much energy trying to persuade me my judgment call in that area should more-closely resemble yours? With all due respect, perhaps some of that energy might be better spent seeking more of the presence of God or seeking those who don’t yet know the joy of His presence.
Comment by Anna Broadway — July 17, 2005 @ 5:42 am
xwudqiwyaou
aagvcoa
Trackback by aixqbfiooac — February 27, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
kpbqoeudmz
voomdah
Trackback by uoue — March 13, 2006 @ 9:05 pm