Dannah Gresh is Rewriting And the Bride Wore White.
But is she apologizing for all the harmful things she wrote before? Is she acknowledging that she told 8-year-old’s that their bellies are “intoxicating”, which she defined as making adult men “out of control”? Is she acknowledging that the messages in And the Bride Wore White are associated with long-term harm for women–messages like all boys struggle with lust; girls have to be modest to keep boys from stumbling; if you have sex before marriage you give a piece of yourself away and you’ll never be able to truly connect with your husband in a way you could have; that it’s girl’s jobs to be the gatekeeper since a boy finds it difficult to stop?
Is she acknowledging that she promoted rape culture myths?
That’s what we’re going to look at in the next three episodes of the Bare Marriage podcast, looking specifically at how to tell when people are rewriting history; how to accurately judge “the fruit” of teaching; and what it looks like to make amends.
Today we’re jumping in with the idea of rewriting history, using a bunch of examples (not just Dannah!). Our video editor Connor had a lot of fun putting all the clips in here! We’ve got:
- Dannah Gresh
- Focus on the Family
- Juli Slattery
- Alisa Childers
- Bob Gresh
- Eric and Leslie Ludy
And examples of strawman arguments and rewriting history from others too.
It’s good to be back, and this is something that the evangelical world needs to confront!
Or, as always, you can watch on YouTube:
Timeline of the Podcast
00:00 Intro: Are People Trying to Rewrite Christian History?
03:20 The Purity Culture Debate Begins – Was it helpful or harmful?
09:43 Purity Culture Defined, When it Gets Hypersexual, & Chastity vs. Purity Culture
18:18 What the Research Actually Shows
21:07 Are We Afraid to Talk About Sex?
28:14 The Problem With Straw Man Arguments, ie: Complementarianism & Egalitarianism Definitions
35:28 When Changing the Words Changes the Story
37:59 Obligation Sex, What Went Wrong, & What Accountability Looks Like
45:42 When Faith Becomes Hyper-focused on Sex
49:03 The Medium Is the Message
54:15 What Does Healthy Fruit Actually Look Like?
1:00:42 Conclusion: Why Changing the Conversation Matters
Key Talking Points
1. Rewriting history doesn’t change what was actually taught.
Influential Christian voices have been revisiting their past teachings and presenting them in a more favorable light. Genuine change is welcome, but it should include an honest account of what was previously taught rather than quietly redefining the terms or reframing the criticism.
2. Biblical chastity is not the same thing as purity culture.
Criticizing purity culture does not mean rejecting the idea that sex is sacred or that waiting for marriage can be a good and meaningful choice. The real concern is with messages that use shame, fear, sexualized teaching, or exaggerated consequences to motivate young people rather than offering a healthy, hopeful vision of sexuality.
3. The way we communicate about sex matters.
We need to draw a distinction between aspirational messages—such as teaching that sex is designed to be intimate and sacred within marriage—and threatening messages that tell young people they will permanently lose part of themselves if they make a sexual mistake. Even messages intended to promote good choices can cause harm when they rely on fear and shame as motivation tools.
4. A straw man argument can make a legitimate critique disappear.
Critics can be portrayed as saying things they never actually said. Make an effort to look past simplified summaries, examine original sources, and ask whether the person making the critique has actually represented the opposing argument fairly.
5. Changing definitions can create the illusion of change, not necessarily actual change.
Words such as “lust,” “purity culture,” or “obligation sex” are being redefined by some Christian authors and speakers so their past teachings technically no longer appear to fit the criticism. Adding new terminology or narrowing a definition doesn’t necessarily change the underlying message or its impact.
6. Obligation sex is harmful—but accountability requires owning the past.
There is a growing recognition in Christian circles that sexual obligation can hurt marriages, particularly when wives are taught that their husband’s sexual needs are something they are responsible for meeting regardless of their own physical or emotional experience. But it is not enough to criticize “what people used to teach” if you were part of teaching those ideas yourself.
7. Hypersexualized faith can crowd out the rest of Christian discipleship.
When Christian teaching becomes overly focused on what happens in the bedroom, believers can lose sight of other important aspects of faith—serving their communities, caring for others, building friendships, and living out their calling. This can lead to a type of spiritual survival mode in which people expend enormous energy trying to perform sexually rather than flourishing in the broader Christian life.
8. Real change involves more than acknowledging that something was harmful.
**Main Takeaway: Meaningful accountability requires ownership. It’s one thing to say, “That teaching was harmful,” and another to say, “I taught that, I was wrong, and I have changed.” Genuine repentance means telling the truth about the past, taking responsibility for one’s role in it, and then consistently walking a healthier path forward.
Things Mentioned in the Podcast
CHECK OUT OUR OCTOBER SIMULCAST EVENT
We’re doing our sex talk and a one-day marriage conference! Check it out for more information.
TO SUPPORT US:
- Join our Patreon for as little as $5 a month to support our work (and get access to the book club!)
- And check out our Merch, or any of our courses!
- Give to the Good Fruit Faith Initiative of the Bosko Foundation
- Join our email list!
LINKS MENTIONED:
- Friday Round-Up link on Alisa Childers
- Our statement on Shaunti Feldhahn (with links to her statement)
- Roys Report article on Sheila calling out Focus on the Family
- The Whole Story Course
- Our book, “She Deserves Better”
- Dannah’s interview with Juli Slattery
- Dannah’s interview with Focus on the Family
- Zachary Wagner’s book, “Men of Virtue”
Have you seen people try to rewrite history? What did you think of Dannah’s attempts? Focus on the Family? Let’s talk in the comments!
Transcript
Coming soon
“Today we’re jumping in with the idea of rewriting history, using a bunch of examples…”
Where oceania has always been at peace with eurasia and the chocolate ration has been increased from twenty grams to ten.
And it becomes so much easier when everything is in digital form on a subscription service. One click of a mouse, one tap-and-swipe of a touch-screen, and every copy in existence is “corrected” without leaving a single trace that any other version had ever existed.
That’s why if you see some damning evidence of someone saying or doing something hypocritical or abusive or whatever you got to take a screen cap of it and document and archive everything since you never know if they might delete it or try to change their story. The truth is things on the internet only stay there forever if someone cares enough to archive the information despite what people might like to say about how “posts on the internet stay forever” to teens to make them think about what they post.
P.S.
YOU’RE BACK!
I’ve seen too many blogs that one day just stop posting/updating with no explanation and never return.
Yes, we tried to let people know in the podcast we were taking off for a break, but I didn’t want to put up a whole post about it because it clogs up the post count! 🙂 But we are back. 🙂
Alisa Childers has publically misrepresented Preston Sprinkle’s views as well. I wonder if she makes a habit of this on her podcast…I’ll likely never listen to her, so who knows? Thought it was interesting though that her name has now come up twice as having misrepresented someone who I think is thoughtful and helpful.
https://theologyintheraw.com/podcast/a-response-to-alisa-childers-and-christopher-yuan/
(It appears that you all are, perhaps, not Sprinkle fans. But, I enjoy and appreciate his podcast for all of the honest and curious conversations amongst bright and well educated Bible scholars, theologians and the like. I actually found your podcast through Theology in the Raw 🙂 )
I mean they are already trying to rewrite the 50s and 60s now that most of the old people who were adults at the time are dead and all the old people left were literal children and children usually see the world with rose tinted glasses especially the privileged ones who didn’t have to go through hardship in their youth. I know when I reach my parents age I won’t remember the 90s fondly since nobody knew how to deal with autism then despite being diagnosed and would either expect me to be some savant when I was above average at best or treated me as intellectually disabled with no middle ground. I also had inattentive ADHD and undiagnosed sleep apnea so I was constantly called lazy by everyone. The past wasn’t always better compared to what people might remember as a child without any responsibilities. I made a promise to myself I wouldn’t try to be too harsh on the youth since what they were saying about iPads are what they said about TV and video games when I was their age and they also said the same thing about radio in my grandparents age.
It is quite funny though that people seem to imagine the 50s like what they see on old commercials which were intentionally idealized to sell a product so of course they will gloss over the racism, sexism, ableism, and homophobia back then that the marginalized group experienced
As someone who was a kid in the First 1960s (tail end of the Fifties, before everything went sour around 1968), there were two things in that Zeitgeist that I feel should have been kept instead of lost:
1) Some sense of decorum instead of “letting everything all hang out” to the level of nonstop “In Your Face” temper tantrum where anything – ANYTHING – goes. On impulse.
2) A “can-do” optimism (born of getting through the Great Depression and WW2) instead of marinating in oh-so-delicious Angst and Pessimism where It’s All Over but the Screaming 24/7.
The Nifty Fifties were NOT some sort of Godly Golden Age; they had their upside, they had their downside. Back then, all everyone saw was their upside; now all everyone sees is their downside.
Even the don’t rock the boat conformity of Fifties culture stems from their origin: After almost twenty years of depression and hardship followed by the bloodiest war in history, everything here in the States had stabilized into a time of prosperity and rebuilding (especially contrasting with what had come before). Everything was finally going good, it’s Miller Time, and DON’T EVER DO ANYTHING THAT COULD RISK WRECKING IT.
In point 2, you say “that waiting for marriage can be a good and meaningful choice.” That seems to imply that there could be other good and meaningful choices besides waiting for marriage for sex. Do you still believe that Biblical chastity forbids sex outside or marriage?
First I want to say that I love what you guys are doing and really appreciate all your hard, honest work and I listen to your podcast regularly. I have an observation from this last podcast that I could be really wrong about but am curious your thoughts.
When Dana Gresh shared about the couple that wrote her the letter, Dana said they wanted to “share their story” of waiting till they were married with their daughter’s youth group and that they have a “beautiful marriage and beautiful sex life”. You quickly responded that their desire was to share “how awesome their sex life is” and “how they didn’t have sex and it was so hard and so tempting and then they did and oh my gosh!” Then you went on to elaborate more about how not appropriate that could get and some bad stories from your experiences. I realize it is very possible that is exactly what they were going to share and maybe that’s why the youth pastor said no. But we don’t really know that. Asking to share their story of waiting doesn’t mean they wanted to talk to the kids about how awesome and hot their sex life was.
I saw this as a bit of a strawman’s fallacy – you took an extreme possibility or perspective of what they wanted to do and blew it up such that it sounded downright disgusting when all we know of their initial request was to share their story.
I say this as someone who very much has been negatively affected by purity culture (tho in a unique way), my husband and I did wait, and I am in no way defending purity culture. Listening to people’s stories is almost always beneficial (although some things are not appropriate to young teenagers and how stories are shared is important, I agree). And also since you guys do a really good job of holding people accountable to using logical arguments correctly I wanted to mention this observation.
Again, I love your work, your commentary, your purpose and efforts. I just wanted to mention this in hopefully a kind and respectful way to be of some help for you guys to be the best you can.
Thanks for all you do!
They have returned.
Also I sit here going wait hold up.
A baby will die of failure to thrive if you do not love said baby. Failure to thrive is one of the saddest things I have ever learned about.
I get annoyed as a man trying to outgrlw porn when folks are like but you have a need.
NO!
WHAT I HAVE IS A DESIRE TO HAVE CHILDREN AND TO FEEL NOT LONELY.
I am trying so hard to try and understand myself. It has been a fascinating journey.
But stop acting like it is a need. It isn’t. I won’t die. If anything I am learning to regulate myself in a healthy way because my autistic self goes between hypo and hyperarousal all the time and I got all sorts of issues I am working through.
But again I won’t spontaneously combust if I do not feel things.
Love that, Daniel. Thank you.
Yay you are back.
I am interested in your book about the fawn response you say you are making.
I also have to say thank you for introducing me to books by folks like Stringer and Drew Boa.
I’m so glad you found them, Codec! I’ll be talking a lot more about my book in the fall! 🙂
Unfortunately, I have seen too many people refuse to own their part when they have caused harm to others. Even when they have been shown the truth, they deflect or deny any responsibility for the hurt they caused. They also, as the video examples you gave, shift the blame and play the victim instead of being self correcting. DARVO anyone?
By the way, welcome back! Hope you had some time to enjoy some time off.
I attended a presentation by Cindy Blackstock, a social worker and Indigenous advocate in Canada. These are not quotes word for word, but this is the example she used. She said that if someone picks up a brick, walks over to you, aims over your foot, and and drops the brick on your foot, you will have a broken foot. If someone is helping clean up your yard and in moving a brick accidentally drops it on your foot, you have a broken foot. Either way, you have a broken foot.
Although we would expect both instances to lead to an apology, likely the only person who will be sincere will be the person who accidentally broke your foot. After your foot is healed you maintain your relationship with the person who accidentally harmed you and apologized. (And you probably look at buying better boots and mitigating the risk of another accident.)
I know you’ve spoken extensively about motive and harm done. But I wish some of the harm was more visible to these authors and speakers so they could see how many of us hobbled around with crutches and some of us still limp.
Yes!