PART XXIX-E: Christian Reconstruction, ATI, Abuse & Submission – Purity Culture


Screen Shot 2014-08-24 at 9.46.40 PMThis is the conclusion of a five part series on the purity culture.

About a hundred year or so before the Roman Empire allegedly ‘fell’, Gregory of Nyssea instructed a younger priest on degrees of sexual sin.

“…There is this division among those sins which come about through desire and pleasure: what is called µοιχεία and what is called πορνεία. For some who are more exacting, it is held that the sin pertaining to πορνεία is also µοιχεία , since there is only one legitimate union for both the wife with her husband and the husband with his wife. Everything, therefore, which is not legitimate is completely illegitimate, and he who has what is not his own clearly has what is another’s. . . .But since the Fathers have allowed some indulgence toward those who are weaker, the sin is judged within this categorical division: a sin of desire which is accomplished without injustice to someone else is called πορνεία, but that which entails injury and injustice toward another is µοιχεία…”

Today’s version of pure is just plain creepy. It can be abusive, and even incestuous.

“…But the dates succeeded in one way: They taught me exactly what I should expect while dating men in that environment: abuse.

The second and more important lesson that a daughter is to learn through her relationship with her father is how she should treat her husbands, by being her father’s apprentice wife. In fact, girls are encouraged to think of their fathers as their boyfriends. We are meant to react to the wooing as described above by “giving her heart to him.”

I learned how to cook my step-father’s favorite foods, to anticipate his needs and to wait on him better than professional servers in five-star restaurants. It was my job to wake up two hours early to make him a hot breakfast, and I was the one who made sure that his glass of iced tea was never empty – even if I was studying and he was working out in his hobby shop.

The second lesson, however, is about more than just being your father’s servant. It is meant to teach young women to orient their entire lives around pleasing their fathers as practice for pleasing their husbands. One of the more important ways that this shows up is in the requirement that a woman dress and groom herself in a way which pleases her father….”

Purity is not just about sexual desires, and controlling a woman’s virginity, her life, and godly patriarchs controlling everything about their daughters’ lives. One might, if reading the following, consider that the ‘purity’ they are demanding is, in itself, terribly impure. On December 15, 1980, John Paul II wrote:

“…3. In relation to the aforesaid juridico-religious tradition of the old covenant, an erroneous way of understanding moral purity developed.(1) It was often taken in the exclusively exterior and material sense. In any case, an explicit tendency to this interpretation spread. Christ opposed it radically. Nothing from outside makes one filthy, no “material” dirt makes one impure in the moral, that is, interior sense. No ablution, not even of a ritual nature, is capable in itself of producing moral purity. This has its exclusive source within man. It comes from the heart.

Probably the respective prescriptions in the Old Testament (for example, those found in Leviticus 15:16-24; 18:lff., or 12:1-5) served, in addition to hygienic purposes, to attribute a certain dimension of interiority to what is corporeal and sexual in the human person. In any case, Christ took good care not to connect purity in the moral (ethical) sense with physiology and its organic processes. In the light of the words of Matthew 15:18-20, quoted above, none of the aspects of sexual “dirtiness,” in the strictly bodily, biophysiological sense, falls by itself into the definition of purity or impurity in the moral (ethical) sense.

A general concept

4. The aforesaid assertion (Mt 15:18-20) is important above all for semantic reasons. Speaking of purity in the moral sense, that is, of the virtue of purity, we use an analogy, according to which moral evil is compared precisely to uncleanness. Certainly this analogy has been a part of the sphere of ethical concepts from the most remote times. Christ took it up again and confirmed it in all its extension: “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a man.” Here Christ spoke of all moral evil, of all sin, that is, of transgressions of the various commandments. He enumerates “evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander,” without confining himself to a specific kind of sin. It follows that the concept of purity and impurity in the moral sense is in the first place a general concept, not a specific one. All moral good is a manifestation of purity, and all moral evil is a manifestation of impurity.

Matthew 15:18-20 does not limit purity to one area of morality, namely, to the one connected with the commandment, “You shall not commit adultery” and “Do not covet your neighbor’s wife,” that is, to the one that concerns the relations between man and woman, linked to the body and to the relative concupiscence. Similarly we can understand the beatitude of the Sermon on the Mount, addressed to “the pure in heart,” both in the general and in the more specific sense. Only the actual context will make it possible to delimit and clarify this meaning.

The flesh and the spirit

5. The wider and more general meaning of purity is present also in St. Paul’s letters. In them we shall gradually pick out the contexts which explicitly limit the meaning of purity to the bodily and sexual sphere, that is, to that meaning which we can grasp from Christ’s words in the Sermon on the Mount on lust. This is already expressed in “looking at a woman,” and is regarded as equivalent to “committing adultery in one’s heart” (cf. Mt 5:27-28).

St. Paul is not the author of the words about the three forms of lust. As we know, they occur in the First Letter of John. John spoke of the opposition within man between God and the world, between what comes “from the Father” and what comes “from the world” (cf. 1 Jn 2:16-17). This opposition is born in the heart and penetrates into man’s actions as “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.” Similarly, St. Paul points out another contradiction in the Christian. It is the opposition and at the same time the tension between the “flesh” and the “Spirit” (written with a capital letter, that is, the Holy Spirit). “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh. For these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would” (Gal 5:16-17). It follows that life “according to the flesh” is in opposition to life “according to the Spirit.” “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit” (Rom 8:5).

In subsequent analyses we shall seek to show that purity—the purity of heart which Christ spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount—is realized precisely in life according to the Spirit….”

After reading this, it is rather obvious the entire ‘purity’ in sex movement is the most impure, sexually absorbed, immoral, lewd, and dominated by sex. They have sex on the brains. The godly men of this godly pure movement are allowed to be perverts like Bill Gothard, and have mistresses as long as they don’t get caught. Mark Driscoll, who, as a write this, may be seeing his empire come to a crashing end, is the most filthy mouthed individual I’ve had the misfortune to encounter. I refuse to associate with filth like this. They do lip service about being godly men, protecting the purity of the women in their lives, but they are lewd, crude, and socially unacceptable.