A woman’s body is not sin.

By AD 200, 3 things were considered forgivable by God, but not by the Church.

Apostasy. Murder. Sexual immorality.

Though the concept of the Church refusing to forgive something that God has is questionable, it shows you how much the Church hated sexual misconduct and immorality. Church leaders were accused of sanctioning sin if they even attempted to readmit someone who had done any of these things.

Now sexual sin, misconduct and abuse has become associated with the Church. How did a place meant to be a safe haven become a house of horror for many?

My aim in this post, is to explore a few common doctrines and practices that I believe have contributed to this and give some biblical propositions on how we can work towards rectifying this.

Strap yourself in. Let’s go on a journey.

Patriarchal purity culture

The term ‘purity culture’ was coined to describe a movement that started in the evangelical church in the 90’s to encourage abstinence and sexual purity. It started in response to the effects of the sexual revolution, which promoted sex outside of marriage. It was characterized by purity rings, purity balls and strict male-female friendships/relationships. It started with a noble Christian motive, but started promoting things not necessarily found in scripture. This was admitted by Joshua Harris who wrote, I kissed dating goodbye, one of the most influential books in regards to purity culture.

The Bible does speak for sexual abstinence and purity before marriage. That cannot be denied. That is God’s desire and we believe it honours Him. However purity and holiness as preached in the scriptures differs from purity culture. Part of the problem is its unbalanced emphasis on women.

Linda Kay Klein (a former Christian) who is a critic of purity culture says this,

“While boys are taught that their minds are a gateway to sin, women are taught that their bodies are.”

Modesty is a biblical concept. However it turns harmful and unbiblical when the reason for doing so is to prevent another person from sinning, which was subtly and sometimes overtly promoted as part of purity culture. The scriptures do not promote this. Rather they promote accountability.

“But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.” — James 1:14 ESV

Blaming sexual sin on how women dress or behave, removes the biblical accountability from men. A man’s sin is never a woman’s fault. It is always the lust in his heart that needs to be submitted to Christ. David saw a naked woman from far away and called her to his room for sex. Joseph had a woman in front of him demanding to have sex and he refused.

This view is so problematic, that it is hard for a woman to breast feed in public, without someone labeling it as ‘immodest’. The culture has so demonised a woman’s body, that any hint of it is termed as wrong.

However a woman’s body is not sin. It was formed by God and displays his glory.

Modesty must not be taught in the context of the male gaze. If a man is perverse, he could see a woman eating a banana or an ice lolly and be aroused. For that reason, should women no longer eat in front of men? This is not only wrong, it is dangerous.

The moment you begin to remove accountability from men and blame their sin on women, you create a culture dangerous for women. Men use what a women wears or how she behaves as their justification for why they assaulted or raped her. When you hear rapists and rape apologists say things such as “look at what she was wearing, she was asking for it”, it shows you how dangerous this mindset is.

Biblical Proposition

Modesty is biblical. Purity is biblical. Holiness is biblical. This is where I differ from secular critics.

What I am not asking, is that we abandon biblical principles. What I am saying, is that we must teach them in a way which is biblically accurate.

A woman’s worth is not based on her virginity and that should not be taught. When Christ came, he showed that all our righteousness and things we did to please God, were like filthy rags. In fact, where man and women professed to be sexually pure, Christ showed they weren’t as sinning in your heart is equivalent to doing it. To emphasise a woman’s worth in relation to her virginity, contradicts what Christ taught.

Modesty should be taught to both women and men. Its teachings should not center or point towards the male gaze, but towards God. There is no place in scripture, where modesty is taught in the context of men. Its emphasis is on cultivating a character pleasing to God, not protecting men with lust issues.

It must also take into account that modesty looks different to women and men with different body types. A woman with a naturally curvy figure should not be persecuted for her figure, as if it is inherently sinful. God did not make a mistake when he made her that way. Her body is not sin. She should not be put under pressure to try and hide every hint of her shape ‘because of the men’. Men should be taught self discipline and to own their sin and not blame it on women, for that is not scriptural.

Even out the playing field. Preach the scriptures and not your opinions. Hold men accountable. Keep women safe.

Church discipline

Following the Protestant Church’s breakaway from the Catholic Church in the 16th century, there were 3 main ‘marks’ that the reformers generally agreed identified a true Church.

1. Preaching of the Word
2. Administration of sacred sacraments
3. Faithful exercise of discipline.

The third point, Church discipline, has gone through an interesting journey over the past centuries.

Church discipline is the process of admonishing a member of the Church that’s in sin in a loving manner, so as to lead them to repentance whilst also protecting other members of the Church from the effects of their sin. It tends to start with a private conversation but in extreme cases, may lead to excommunication.

Brief history of Church discipline

By the late second century, the Church tended to follow a similar pattern in regards to discipline. When it came to sins which didn’t drastically affect other people, a private confession to a leader and a demonstration of the fruit of repentance was encouraged. However, the standard practice of discipline in regards to believers who did serious things such as murder and adultery involved the following 4 stage process,

• There was a period where they had to stand outside the Church, begging for the prayers of the ‘faithful’ believers who went outside. They were termed as ‘weepers’.
• After some time had passed, they were allowed in, but had to stand in an area separate from other Church members. They were called ‘hearers’.
• After some more time had passed, they became ‘kneelers’. They no longer had to stay separate from everyone else, but there were still a few restrictions given unto them.
• The last stage before full restoration, was where the individuals were termed as ‘standers’. They could remain throughout everything, but could not partake in the Lord’s supper.

For something such as intentional murder, this process could take 27 years. Adultery took 18 years. Depending on the what was done, the number of years differed.

As time went on, the Church moved on from this. One of the key reasons, was due to a public scandal in late fourth century, when Bishop Nectarius of Constantinople attempted to discipline a deacon who had been involved in sexual immorality. After that, Churches moved more into private penance, which involved private confessions to priests, who then assigned them things to do such as fasting, a payment of fine, a period of exile, etc.

When the Protestant Church broke away from the Catholic Church, one of the many things it sought to establish and bring back, was biblical Church discipline. There were successes with this but also obstacles. An example is when John Calvin was asked to leave Geneva by the government, because though he had been aiding in reforming the Church in Geneva, they didn’t agree with him on discipline. They eventually reversed their decision, and they agreed to create a council which helped administer Church discipline.

Eventually, Church discipline which had been a resurrected doctrine, began to die down again. It became less common due to syncreticism and sentimentality. As this happened, people became more emboldened in their sin.

Church discipline: Case study — Southern Baptist Convention

In early 2019, the Houston Chronicle published an article detailing the abuse that had taken place in Churches which have affiliation with the Southern Baptist Convention. There have been more than 700 victims in 20 years, and the abuses had driven some victims to suicide. The youngest victim was 3.

The abuses were perpetrated by pastors, ministers, youth pastors, general volunteers, etc. When studying the culture of how this went on for so long, a few things are quite plain.

The perpetrators were protected by the leaders and the Church. There was a culture of doing things privately and also never involving law enforcement. This was linked to a wrong interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6, which speaks about believers not taking lawsuits to unbelievers.

In a particular case where a lady was impregnated by her pastor as a teenager (statutory rape), she was asked to ask forgiveness in front of the congregation, without the congregation even being told that the baby was their pastor’s. He didn’t admit being the father of the child until much later.

In what is extremely common, when it was found out that a pastor or man in the Church had abused someone, nothing was done about it, or he was quietly dismissed, after which he would go to another Church and the abuse would continue. At times, the victims were told to forgive their perpetrators and move on.

This all fostered a culture of abuse and brokenness.

Biblical proposition

Let’s go back to what the Bible says concerning how we treat sin, especially amongst Church leaders.

“Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” — 1 Timothy 5:19–20 KJV

It is plain. Leaders who sin, especially in such a way that others are harmed, are not meant to just be treated privately. The scriptures demand that there is a public statement and disapprobation. Where necessary, they are also to be removed as they no longer fulfill the requirements that the Bible asks of them (more on that later). In cases of abuse, they are to be reported to the civil authorities, in line with 1 Peter 2:13. 1 Corinthians 6 is not a reason to not report them.

“When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?” — 1 Corinthians 6 :1–2

The scripture above makes it clear, that this is pertaining to ‘trivial cases’. Not cases where lives are in danger and are being affected. If you would not keep a murder private, why is sexual abuse and rape being kept private?

The 1 Timothy scripture mentioned earlier makes it clear that the reason leaders are to be rebuked publicly is to encourage a sense of fear from others who would normally commit the same sin/crime. Abusers within the Church have lost that fear. In fact, many in the Church fight against the whole concept of Church discipline. For them it is too harsh. It is a misplaced sentimentality. Of this, Victor Masters says,

“Sentimentality is the love of man divorced from the love of truth. Under the specious guise of broadened sympathies it cloaks a big lot of hypocrisy and moral decay. The church sentimentalist is so kind to his fellow church member that he is willing to ignore the plain instructions of the Book of faith rather than bring him to account for unchristian conduct.”

It must be stated that the scripture mentioned does not mean that if a Church leader is accused of inappropriate and harmful behaviour, we must wait till it’s been done 2 or 3 times before investigating. The heart of the scripture was meant to encourage thorough investigation to prevent instances of false allegations.

Paul also made it clear that congregants involved in sinful behavior were not to be treated lightly. Of a man who was sleeping with his stepmom, Paul asked the Church not to associate with him. Jesus also incorporated a 3 step disciplinary process for congregants.

To summarise what I am saying. Almost 2000 years ago, if a Christian or Christian leader had sexually abused a woman (or man), he would have likely been excommunicated and his sin would have been made plain and announced to everyone in the Church. He might have never been let into a Church again, and if he was, it may have taken him up to 30 years before he had full membership. Nowadays, if a leader acts in such a manner, he may be asked quietly to ‘take a break’ for a few months, whilst remaining in the same Church. Or he may be quietly dismissed, being free to go to other Churches.

Though the former is a tad bit extreme, it was done closer to the time that the scriptures were written and is closer to the heart of discipline than is found in most Churches today. Leaders and members of the Church should not be able to abuse individuals and be quietly dismissed. Biblically, it is meant to be a public church affair, to ensure others fear and know how much God hates abuse.

Leaders should take heed to this and consider their Church discipline procedures. Congregants should challenge and report leaders if they feel abuse and rape are swept under the carpet. If it is not taken seriously, consider whether it is a safe environment for you to stay in.

The requirement of ministers

“Therefore a Church leader must be…”

This is how 1 Timothy 3 begins in its description on the requirements of Church leaders and volunteers. Let’s explore how not abiding by just 2 of these requirements, feeds into rape culture.

Recent converts: Case Study — SPAC Nation

“A church leader must not be a new believer, because he might become proud, and the devil would cause him to fall.” — 1 Timothy 3:6 NLT

One of the things stressed by Paul, was that leaders in the Church are not to be recent converts. They are to be individuals that have been tried and according to the earlier verses, have shown themselves to be sober, self-controlled, etc.

SPAC Nation, a Church in London, England has had a lot of controversy, to say the least. There was an article published by the Daily Mail, which spoke on the allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct by ministers in the Church.

When looking at SPAC Nation in relation to this case study, one thing that is obvious for anyone who has followed them, is their regular ordination of large amounts of young people to leadership and ministerial positions. Large amounts of young adults and teenagers occupy positions of influence and leadership. They have ordained over 200 individuals.

The problem with this, is that some of these individuals may have not had an opportunity to grow in Christ with no additional burdens. They have not had the opportunity to learn about theology and have their character issues challenged and changed (a vital part of Christian growth), before occupying these influential positions. Many churches have the same culture. Hence, these people who may have serious issues, end up hurting and abusing others sexually, emotionally, etc.

In my old Church, I was a teenage youth leader. I was addicted to porn and I didn’t have anyone in leadership pull me up and asked me about my personal life. About my proclivities and discipleship. I was passionate, and so I was put into a position. Though I thankfully didn’t, if I had been an individual whose viewing of porn led to harmful acts (as highlighted in a study), that would have been on the Church (and me) for making me a leader when I shouldn’t have been.

Youthful passion is not enough. Verified character is a demand from God, so that his Church would be protected from abuse, false doctrine, etc. To not uphold this is to create a culture where people in God’s Church are not safe.

Good reputation with those who are outside

“Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.” — 1 Timothy 3:7 ESV

One of the demands in the scripture above, is that anyone who is a leader must have a good reputation with those outside of the Church.

This is a sobering scripture and one commonly ignored, to the detriment of the Church. When choosing a leader, part of what must be assessed is their reputation with people who are not Christians. We commonly hear,

“It doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks! All that matters is what God thinks.”

However when it comes to choosing a leader, that statement is false.

If a person has sexually abused someone else, their reputation is soiled with the public. If they are registered as a sex offender, their reputation is soiled as well. To put them back into leadership positions (which was done a lot in the SBC case study), is ignoring the clear mandate from God as seen in the scriptures. Most biblical commentators agree that this is also includes those whose reputations are soiled from things they did prior to salvation. On this scripture, Charles Ellicott says,

“For these weighty reasons St. Paul charged Timothy to be very watchful when he chose his presiding elders, to elect only those who, in the dissolute society of Ephesus, had known how, even in old days, to preserve their good name stainless, their character unscarred.”

One may argue, does that not rule out Apostle Paul? There are two things to note with that.

1. Paul did not become a Christian leader till years after conversion. During that time, his reputation improved. He preached the Gospel, but did not occupy leadership positions for quite a number of years.
2. He had a good reputation with the Jews prior to his conversion. He did not have a bad reputation with those outside the Church, though they obviously disagreed with his new found faith.

Biblical proposition

I am simply asking us to obey the scriptures.

The practice of restoring a leader committing abuse and misusing his position in the Church, and then going back to his original/similar position after a few months, is neither biblical nor historical.

Deacons — which was a position that can refer to anyone who volunteers and serves in a Church— had to be tested as well for a character. 1 Timothy 3:8–13 details their requirements, which including ‘testing to be be proved blameless’

Do not appoint new converts as leaders. Do not let passion or a ‘need for leaders’, cause you to put someone who has not been tested into a position. You are creating a culture that breeds exploitation, abuse, false doctrine and sin.

Have DBS checks for anyone working with children. That is a basic way to test volunteers. No one on the sex registry should be put into a position where they could potentially hurt someone. Here is a guide to prompt discussion on what to do if a sex offender desires to attend your Church, by a Christian insurance company.

If your Church is doing the opposite of this, push back. Speak to leaders and flag it as a concern. If it is not taken seriously, consider whether it is a safe environment for you to stay in.

Conclusion

Women are regularly raped, and sometimes killed.

It grieves me. I know it grieves many in the Church. However before we try and tell the world how to clean up its act, we must assess whether our backyards are clean. I believe that rape culture exists in many Christian assemblies, not because God intended it so, but because of the wickedness in men’s hearts and a twisting of scripture. I believe we cannot be silent on this, and must be vocal about these cultures.

If you are a man, listen to women. Don’t speak over them. You have never walked in their shoes. Stay silent and learn. Let that breed empathy in you. Confront predatory behaviour and repent if you have been guilty of it.

To every woman abused. To every woman who was told that it was ‘their fault’. To every woman who no longer feels comfortable in their skin because of purity culture. To every woman who has had to see their abuser on a regular basis — I am sorry. I hope I can be part of the change to dismantle rape culture and make the world a safer place for you.

Maranatha.