On Legislating Biblical Family Values

As I’ve observed Christian nationalism and studied purity culture in the last few years, a common theme repeatedly shows up: the pursuit of “biblical” family values. Images, metaphors, and myths of the ideal family have shaped much of how many people, namely conservative Christians, have understood their role as God’s chosen people, both as American citizens and believers.

(Curious about recent examples of Christian nationalism? I suggest checking out this article or this one.)

However, the “ideal family” is an ever-evolving narrative, or “…a set of interrelated ideas and symbols that are facilitated by configurations of resources.” The way we think about the concept of family and related family values impact how we understand their role in religious, social, and political spheres. For example, in many conservative religious communities the nuclear family is understood as a God-ordained, heterosexual, monogamous union that exemplifies morality. Traditional gender roles shape the responsibilities of each member of the family, including the children. The elevation of whiteness, sexual “purity,” and biblical literalism may also be defining characteristics. This schema of the nuclear family has become normative for many evangelical Christians, but is it truly normal?

Various researchers argue that presenting this narrative as normative is misleading. I don’t want to step too far outside my main point, but I believe these scholars offer some important considerations when thinking about family values:

• 1993, historian Stephanie Coontz published a book, The Way We Never Were: American Families And The Nostalgia Trap, which confronted several myths associated with the “ideal family.” In 2016, Coontz revisited her research to address her work in light of current trends. She notes that although a few of her predictions were off, the “tendency for many Americans to view present-day family and gender relations through the foggy lens of nostalgia for a mostly mythical past” has remained unchanged.
• Linguistics professor and researcher, George Lakoff, presents two broad frameworks that inform how liberal and conservative worldviews understand the role, purpose, and nature of the family unit: nurturant parent family and the strict father model. In his book, Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think, he suggests these worldviews influence how we think about citizenship and social/political engagement.
• Marriage, according to historian Nancy Cott, is woven into both religious identity and government involvement. In her book, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation, she writes, “By incriminating some marriages and encouraging others, marital regulations have drawn lines among the citizenry and defined what kinds of sexual relations and which families will be legitimate.”

Remind me, what’s purity culture?

If you’re still in the beginning stages of learning about purity culture, I highly suggest taking a break from this post to read through my research on this here. For now I’ll quickly summarize it here: 

• Purity culture claims sexual immorality (or any and all sexual behavior outside of heterosexual marriage) will destroy someone’s potential for healthy relationships. As a double standard, virginity and suppressed sexualities are held in much higher esteem for girls and women than for boys or men.  
• Family values may be formed around traditional gender roles, often in tandem with objectifying language and/or benevolent sexism, to keep men in authority over women.  
• Purity culture’s language, practices, and theology mirror rape culture, which perpetuates myths and victim blaming.  

Common Family Values between Christian Nationalism and Purity Culture 

Both Christian nationalism and purity culture emphasize the importance of the nuclear family as an oracle of morality, both in religious and national contexts. The family, as imagined by both groups, derives significance from its divine design for gender and sexuality. Perceived threats to this design, including feminism, comprehensive sex education, as well as interracial marriage and LGBTQ+ rights, may be vigorously opposed. This is recognized both by anecdotal and academic research.

[The Christian right’s] influence stemmed from its ability to frame family values as a matter crucial to the survival of the country. By the end of the 1970s, Christian right leaders had connected governmental attempts to protect abortion, advance feminism, and defend gay rights with conservatives’ sense of national decline. They saw opposition to these movements as essential to restoring America’s strength.

– Seth Dowland, “Family Values” and the Formation of a Christian Right Agenda

Right off the bat, the common figures listed among research related to Christian nationalism appear as major figures in purity culture, too: Jerry Falwell (and the Moral Majority), Christian Voice, Tim LaHaye, Council for National Policy, James Dobson, Roy Moore, Pat Robertson, Michael Farris, Christian Coalition, and many more.  

Each of these individuals or movements could be elaborated on ten times over, so please use this broad overview as inspiration for deeper research. I would also like to mention that I place no judgement on those who personally hold to traditional understandings of gender, practice abstinence, or have a heterosexual marriage. However, I find the legal and religious enforcement of these things on others unethical and antithetical to religious freedom.

Feminism as a Threat to the Divine Order

Traditional views on gender roles shape how many conservative folks interpret the appropriate societal and spiritual roles of men and women. Although there is a broad spectrum of belief on what scripture describes, many believe feminism contradicts what the Bible teaches. Theologies of complementarianism and submission have prompted both men and women to oppose political movements of gender equality and feminism.

• This sentiment is nothing new. In an 1873 decision (Bradwell  v. Illinois) Myra Bradwell was denied a license to practice law, even though she passed the bar exam. Justice Joseph Bradley claimed, “The family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance… is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband…The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator.”
• In addition to their political work in the 1970s, the Moral Majority published a “Family Manifesto” in opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and other legislation related to abortion and LGBTQ+ rights.
• Concerned Women for America was founded in 1978 by Beverly LaHaye in the wake of the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment. Still today, this organization presses back against legislation attempting to advance transgender rights, reproductive healthcare, and other issues that do not align their their “Biblical” understanding of gender.

Sex and Sexuality Education as a Threat to Biblical Sexuality

From the early days of the Religious Right to present-day organizations, Christians have pushed back on comprehensive sex education due to their personal religious beliefs on sex, sexuality, and gender. Information on sex and sexuality that might otherwise be described as thorough or inclusive, is understood as inappropriate, “graphic,” or “trash.” Abstinence-only sex education is seen as superior to comprehensive sex education.

• California Family Council aims to “Advanc[e] God’s Design for Life, Family, & Liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, & Culture.” With this mission, they continue to oppose sex education curriculum that they believe is not age appropriate for their children or includes “graphic” material, such as information on gender identity, STI/STDs, low-risk sexual behaviors, and sexual orientation.
• My Faith Votes, an organization chaired by Mike Huckabee, believes sex education that includes information related to consent, contraception alternatives to abstinence, and LGBTQ+ issues, is “anti-Christian” and should not be included in public school curriculum.
• During his run for Congress in 2020, Sean Feucht, an evangelical worship leader from California, advocated for removing or reducing comprehensive sex education from public schools. He used his campaign platform on Instagram to speak on this topic here, too.

Yet, research shows the abstinence-only approach to sex “education” does not make a significant impact on when young people have a sexual debut. It does, however, negatively impact their use of contraceptives.

Despite this research, abstinence-only education has been funded by federal dollars from the Reagan administration, to Clinton administration, and on to the Bush administration. In 2018, the Guttmacher Institute found that funding continues to feed re-branded abstinence-only education programs.

Naomi Rivkind Shatz, J.D. argues, “If abstinence-only education’s purpose is to reduce premarital pregnancy and STIs, then its methods are not effectively related to the achievement of those goals and cannot meet the Supreme Court’s standard for “secular purpose” as articulated in Edwards and Wallace. On the other hand, if the program’s purpose is simply the promotion of abstinence as an inherent good, without regard to the positive or negative health consequences of the programs, then they are putting forth a moral position that is religiously based.”

Interracial & LGBTQ+ Marriage as a Threat to the Institution of Marriage

Marriage is an important sacrament in the Christian faith, and some have idolized it as a primary means of spiritual, sexual, and social health. More specifically, white, heterosexual, white, able-bodied marriages are often seen as the cream of the crop, leaving anyone outside that definition labelled immoral, dirty, secondary, etc.

“People in the most right-wing states see their families and those around them falling apart, and are flailing wildly for way to save them… When evangelicals talk about preserving marriage’s “sanctity,” they’re also talking about preserving its security.”

– Michelle Goldberg, Kingdom Coming

Although many evangelicals understand marriage to be the gateway to sexual and ethnic purity, there are many examples of how this approach continues to fail: The Southern Baptist Convention and Ravi Zacharias are some of the most current examples, but a simple Google search of #ChurchToo will reveal countless testimonies from around the world.

• Andrew Seidel reminds us “penalties for miscegenation” were common until 1967. The landmark case, Loving v. Virginia, changed legislation on this. A trial judge called upon his interpretation of God’s design to separate the races, saying “The fact that he [God] separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” 
• In 2005, President George Bush proposed and implemented the Healthy Marriage Initiative, which was supposedly formed for the purpose of strengthening families. And yet, conservative advocates, like Focus on the Family and representatives from the Southern Baptist Convention, argued the initiative wasn’t strong enough to counter the push for LGBTQ+ marriage rights. These advocates were only interested in “strengthening” certain families.
• The Southern Poverty Law Center lists several examples of evangelical or fundamentalist organizations who are still working against LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. Focus on the Family, Summit Ministries, and the Family Research Institute are among those listed; some are even categorized as hate groups.

Power, Purity, and Family Values

Christian nationalism and purity culture, and the theologies that link them, are great examples of harmful expressions of political power and purity. More specifically, the Christian church has attempted to use its power and misguided theologies of (sexual, racial, ethnic) purity to enforce its interpretation of “biblical” family values on the public as normative. This approach is does not achieve true religious freedom and instead promotes a theocracy.

“Today we see a lot of confusion about what religious liberty even means. Often when people are claiming that their religious liberty is being threatened, what they’re really talking about is the fact that someone else’s choice or even a law is not in line with their own religious beliefs. That’s not necessarily a threat to religious liberty. That’s more a concern about the loss of religious privilege.

— Amanda Tyler, Executive Director of Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty

In a time where (white, evangelical) Christians have held significant power in both politics and the pulpit, it may be startling to watch other interpretations of family gain more attention and status. This shift does not mean the church is being persecuted, rather religious freedom is being exercised beyond the grasp of Christian nationalism.

I have yet to come across evidence that suggests feminism, comprehensive sex education, or interracial and LGBTQ+ marriages erode family values at increased rates over fundamentalist or conservative approaches to family. They do however, disrupt the idea that a cis-gendered, heterosexual union with procreative abilities and traditional gender roles is the norm for all families.

How have you noticed the intersection of Christian nationalism and purity culture in your own life?

Read more:  

• These Evangelical Women Are Abandoning Trump and Their Churches
• Women have been the heart of the Christian right for decades
• Questions left unaddressed by religious familism: Is spirituality relevant to nontraditional families?
• Red States, Blue States, and Divorce: Understanding the Impact of Conservative Protestantism on Regional Variation in Divorce Rates
• Eschatological Sexuality: Miscegenation and the ‘Homosexual Agenda’ from Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) Lawrence vs. Texas (2003)