Damaged Goods, by Dianna E. Anderson

Dianna Anderson's new book Damaged Goods: New Perspectives on Christian Purity frustrated me, leaving me conflicted and disappointed.  The Amazon blurb reads, "Anderson's new sexual ethics draw on core biblical principles and set a standard for today's Christians that may be as influential Joshua Harris' I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Don Raunikar's Choosing God's Best, and Elisabeth Elliot's Passion and Purity."  A new sexual ethic?  Yes, but here's a hint: she hates those books.

Anderson's goal is positive and admirable.  She notes that the "purity movement," with its emphasis on virginity and modesty, has left many young women burdened with shame and worthlessness.  This is no doubt true, as the women Anderson interviewed testify.  Women or girls who engage in sex, willfully or under coercion, before marriage can feel as if they are worthless, unmarriageable, and unredeemable.  The church needs to be a place of healing and grace through Jesus, no matter what choices we make or what we are victims of.

But Anderson goes too far in completely rejecting an emphasis on purity.  She describes it as anti-sex, quoting women who are unable to have a satisfying sex life when married because of "the idea that sex, no matter the circumstances, is a Bad Thing that requires punishment."  She even implicates the church in the "cultural acceptance of rape" for blaming the victims and creating "leniency toward rape and forgiveness for rapists."

Related to the purity movement is the emphasis on modesty.  She says the modesty movement argues "that men can dictate what women wear, and that women have a  Christian duty to keep their brothers from lusting."  Anderson counters that women are not responsible for the sins of men, and that their bodies are their own, to adorn as they wish.  Here she gets a little ridiculous.  Fashions change and every body is different.  A particular dress on some women is modest and on another is immodest?  Obviously.  This doesn't reflect a problem with a modesty standard; it simply reflects the fact that women come in all shapes and sizes.  Personally, I would not want a man looking at my bare cleavage, if I were a woman.  I agree with Anderson that women who wear "sexy" clothes (by whatever standard one might use) is not asking for rape, but if she then complains about men staring at her chest, well, I don't see that she has grounds to object.  And I certainly don't want men staring at my daughter's chest!

Anderson treats the purity movement, especially Joshua Harris's views, and the modesty movement as reflective of all of American Evangelicalism.  Sure, those views are out there, but in my experience at a Christian university and in Baptist and nondenominational churches in Texas and Michigan, it seems Anderson gives far too much weight to these writers.  While they must be flattered, and might hope to have the kind of influence Anderson attributes to them, I don't see it.

The larger problem I see with Anderson's book is her goal: a personal ethic of sexuality.  She wants to develop a "shame-free sexual ethics." The foundation of her ethic is non-controversial: "A healthy sexuality that takes others into account, that asks for maturity and understanding and respects others and their bodies, is a Biblical sexuality."  Sex "requires listening, patience, mutual pleasure, and grace."  And who could possibly disagree that "a healthy sexual relationship is one based on mutual pleasure and mutual enthusiastic consent"?

All of that sounds great, except that for Anderson all of that is true, "whether it happens inside or outside of marriage.  Sex is for couples "married or not, committed for life or not."  Sex brings unity, "but it doesn't require the bond of marriage to do so." And in case you missed it, "Sex need not be exclusive to marriage."  Sure, some might still want to wait until marriage to have sex, and that's fine with her, but "for others, it will mean having a mutually pleasurable and consensual encounter on a first date" or "participating in a 'friends with benefits' relationship wherein everyone understands what the agreement is."  She affirms bisexual, homosexual, and polyamorous relationships, as long as they meet the "mutual pleasure and mutual consent" standard.

Whatever ethic you come up with is fine.  Study the Bible and "make your own decision about what you will give weight and what you will cast aside." Anderson talks about "develop[ing] your own understanding" and "developing our own personal sexual ethics." You must "decide what sex means for you."  And as you develop your ethic, remember that "gender and sexuality are not fixed states.  Rather they are fluid, intermingling identities. . . . Whom we are attracted to has the ability to expand or shift over time." You know, be curious, explore, because "all sexual and gender identities [are] valid."  As you develop your personal sexual ethic, everyone should do so "as they see fit, so long as it doesn't involve hurting other people."

This personal ethic of Anderson's opens the door for virtually any expression of sexuality imaginable.  She does draw the line at sex with minors, as they are incapable for truly consenting.  She doesn't describe specific scenarios, but her "mutual pleasure and consent" standard would allow for multiple partners of either gender, a different partner every day, sex in pairs or groups of any size, sex with people you know and love or with strangers, just let your imagination run wild.  She doesn't address the porn industry or prostitution, but based on the "mutual pleasure and consent" standard, I don't see how she could object to a personal sexual ethic that includes these activities, as long as everyone is a willing participant.

Is that really what Anderson wants as an alternative to purity vows?  Ask yourself, should we be teaching teens that God's ideal is to have sex exclusively with your spouse?  Or should we be teaching them to have sex with whoever, whenever, and however they want, as long as it is mutually pleasurable and consensual?  Yes, of course there have been abuses in the church.  Yes, we should foster an atmosphere of grace rather than condemnation for victims of rape.  Yes, we should first an atmosphere of forgiveness and redemption for those who sin.  Yes, we are all sinners and we recognize that many, many Christians fall into sexual sin of every sort.

In spite of the shortcomings of churches' teachings on sexuality, we have to recognize that God's plan--one man and one woman becoming one flesh in the bond of marriage--is an ideal established by God for our good.  As with all of God's ideal's we fall short, way too often.  And God in his grace will restore joy and wholeness to those who fail (which is all of us).  But Anderson wants to jettison God's plan for whatever she might come up with on her own.

I will end with a song that came to mind while reading Damaged Goods.  This is from the album, "Door Into Summer" by Jacob's Trouble, released in the late 1980s.  I think it fits.

Are you tired of religion that only seems to bring you down?
Cramping your lifestyle like a certain thorny crown?
Are you sick of being told that you can't make it on your own?
If that's your case, I've got a place that you can call a home!
(Chorus:)
It's the Church Of Do What You Want To
The Church Of Do What You Please
The Church Of Do What Feels Good Baby
And Believe What You Want To Believe



Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the complimentary electronic review copy!