Pureflix is a streaming service that features
predominantly Christian and conservative media. Exclusive streaming series starring David
A. R. White, Evangelical endtimes propaganda movies such as Left Behind, and a host of
other barely-watchable dreck. Out of curiosity if nothing else, I subscribed to Pureflix
over the summer and watched such diverse fare as the first Apocalypse movie and the second
Apocalypse movie. I was about to call it a failed experiment until I scrolled through
the genre listing and noticed a “romance” section. What is “romance” as defined
by socially conservative Evangelical Christians? What makes something a Christian romance?
Is it only harmless Hallmark movie-of-the-week rubbish, or is there something more sinister
or at least self-righteous in its messaging? It depends on the movie. Pureflix recommended
Belle and the Beast, a Christian re-imagining of Beauty and the Beast. This time, instead
of romantic love changing the Beast, it's the love of God. This falls into the mostly harmless category
– but the other movies I watched were something else altogether. After scrolling through the
romance section, I came upon a movie called Old Fashioned. Released right before Valentine's
Day in 2015, Old Fashioned was believed to be positioned as counter-programming to Fifty
Shades of Grey, released on the same day. Old Fashioned goes in the oppose extreme of
Fifty Shades, preaching a Christian abstinence so rigid that it is actually not even mandated
by the Holy Bible. Old Fashioned stars Rik Swartzwelder, who also wrote, directed and
produced the movie. While some movies leave a certain amount of ambiguity in its messaging
and its overall perspective, that is not the case here. Old Fashioned has a specific perspective
and specific morals – reinforced by the very text of the film, in which these morals
are portrayed positively and win out in the end. The
film opens with an out-of-towner, Amber, meeting the owner of a local antique shop, Clay. Amber
notices right away that Clay seems to be keeping his distance, and when asked, Clay admits
that he must never be the same room alone with a woman unless that woman is his wife.
There are two implications here. The first is that Clay knows he cannot trust himself
to even be near a woman without succumbing to her seduction. The second is that Clay believes Amber, who
he only met a moment ago, is planning on seducing him. The Holy Bible offers guidelines on how
to live in a variety ways. There are explicit, unshakable commandments that are not significantly
contradicted elsewhere in the Bible. There are standards that are contradicted. There
are priestly standards that can be misinterpreted as standards for the general population. And
there are stories with lessons that imply a standard. The Bible is not simply a set
of standards, though. It is also a narrative of a people that scholars may call mythohistorical.
There is nothing, however, in the entirety of the most commonly accepted canonical books
of the Bible that suggest men and women must never be allowed to be alone at the same time
before wedlock. In fact, there instances of in the Bible in which this happens, including
Jesus Christ himself being alone with the woman who committed adultery. He spoke to
the crowd, and when they all left, he was alone with her and spoke with her. “When
Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where
are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” John, Chapter 8, Verse 11. With that
in mind, where does this rule come from? Is it an invention of the movie Old Fashioned?
No, it is a fairly modern invention called the Modesto Manifesto, named after Modesto,
California where Evangelical Protestant preacher Billy Graham proposed this concept. Though framed as a tenet of Christianity,
it has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with social conservatism. Clay confesses
to Amber that he does not believe in dating. He frames his objections as being pragmatic.
Clay says that dating does not bring people closer and the two people dating do not learn
much about each other. However, Clay also casually mentions that dating leads to premarital
relations. Clay believes that men and women should not even kiss before marriage. Does
this have any Biblical support? No, and truthfully, the more common belief that the Bible insists
upon chastity before marriage is disputed. Proponents of chastity before marriage often
cite the Ten Commandments and the First Epistle to the Corinthians. In the former, “Thou
Shalt Not Commit Adultery” is broadened to not committing any relations that might
be offensive to God. However, creates a kind of circular reasoning. The proponent says
premarital relations is offensive to God, and says the commandment encompasses any relations
that are offensive to God, then says the evidence that premarital relations is offensive is
the commandment, which does not say premarital relations is offensive to God. This argument
is missing a step. In the latter, Paul is referring to how the Corinthians behave and
suggestions for how they might behave in order to solve a problem they have been having.
It is not a sermon on the mount. It is a letter to a church in Corinth, a city in Greece. It is advice from a man to a particular people
at a particular time who are having a particular problem, not a mandate from God. The Bible
is a series of books and letters about sometimes barely-related topics, combined into one tome.
This gives people the impression that it is an intentionally singular narrative and that
everything contained within has approximately equal weight. The trouble with giving equal
weight to every verse of the Holy Bible is that it removes context and relative importance.
Without context, a letter written for a specific audience with specific instructions is given
as much weight as a universal lesson about how all people should treat one another. Much
of the debate about what is and is not permissible in terms of relations comes from the conflation
of various terms and translations. The Gospels were written in Greek, and used this word
to refer to a wide variety of “improper” relations, even though the literal translation
is not premarital relations. This conflation of terms, translations, as well as varying
interpretations and contradictions makes it challenging to argue for the Biblical absolutism
of the prohibition against premarital relations. With this in mind, why is it such a prevalent
belief? Because it reaffirms social conservatism, misogyny, and the control of women. Socially
conservative Christianity views women as both inherent temptresses and pure virgins. This means that a man must never be alone
with a women, lest the man be seduced by the woman, and that the woman's virginity must
be maintained until after marriage – when their sexuality can be better controlled by
the man. Amber falls for Clay and his bizarre, arch-conservative standards because he frames
them as “respecting women” but he does not respect her agency, her right as an adult
to make consensual relations. Instead of dating, Clay has Amber practice being a mother to
their potential children, asks her how many men she had been with before him, and in his
spare time, interrupts a bachelor party. Clay does not “respect” women, he confines
them into his narrow definition of what women should be and what women are allowed to do.
As Clay and Amber continue their non-dating, the townspeople speculate on why Clay is not
like other men. A young woman speculates that Clay is gay. Amber rejects this outright,
even though she only met him days prior and has no reason to believe he is or is not straight.
The only other speculation on why Clay is not like other men is that he is “diseased”
– suggesting “being diseased” and “being gay” are comparable. Amber's immediate rejection
plays into the socially conservative perspective of what is and is not a true relationship
under God. One man and one woman. Representation of gay couples are nearly non-existent in
Christian films of this variety. In the end, Clay asks Amber to marry him,
and before he even finishes his question, she answers “Yes.” as if marrying this
man she only just met is the obvious thing for her to do. Romance movies often have to
speed things along instead of showing the several years someone usually needs before
they are certain their partner is someone they want to spend of their life with – but
in Old Fashioned, this takes on a different dimension. Clay and Amber not only fall in
love with each other over the course of a few days, they get married over the course
of a few days, without seeing if they are compatible living together, without seeing
if they have physical chemistry, and without seeing if they would get along in the long-run.
The movie frames this as romantic and ordained by God, but it's actually pretty creepy watching
a free-spirited woman get suckered into leading a completely different and stifling lifestyle
because she met a bland, uninteresting antique salesmen who brainwashed her. Amber just got
out of an abusive relationship, and the movie wants us to compare this to her relationship
with Clay and how he won't break her wrist, but preying on a woman fleeing abuse by offering
her a new relationship while she is psychologically recovering and vulnerable is not appropriate. It's kind of messed up. Old Fashioned does
not see it that way, of course, and Clay and Amber live happily ever after – until she
hopefully comes to her senses. Old Fashioned wants its audience to believe that the way
Clay and Amber come together shows that there can be higher standards in romance, but these
are not higher standards, they're just different standards, and based on how little these two
really know about each other before getting married, these standards are not the foundation
of a lasting relationship – they're only the standards of a relationship that Clay
believes God expects of him. Old Fashioned is not a movie about how to have a loving
relationship. It's about how to be in a relationship without going to Hell. From the perspective
of the Christian filmmaker, that is more important. It's just that in order for that to be a valid
concern, Hell would have to be a real place and not the invention of his religion, and
that his interpretation of the Bible as it pertains to relationships would have to be
accurate and not culturally biased. Fireproof is the next Pureflix romance movie I watched.
It is available at the time of writing, but according to the website, it will not be available
by the time this video debuts, so you missed out! Fireproof is about a married, Caleb and
Catherine, who are having difficulties. Caleb believes Catherine does not respect him despite
his heroic status as a firefighter, and Catherine believes Caleb is inattentive and insensitive. After a slow buildup of resentment, Catherine
asks Caleb for a divorce. Caleb's father gives his son a guide to reigniting his marriage
and avoiding what the film calls an “ugly divorce.” Catherine and Caleb have no children,
and neither of them are planning on doing anything underhanded to one another during
proceedings or demanding more than they are owed. However, in Fireproof, any divorce is
an “ugly” divorce, because divorce is an affront to God. Caleb's father tells him
so – as does Caleb's co-worker. Seemingly without much build-up, Caleb says he is now
“all in” on Christianity. His words. Is divorce actually an affront to God? Is it
sinful to escape a loveless or even abusive marriage? Christian proponents of the idea
that God disapproves of divorce often cite Malachi, Chapter 2, Verse 16. Although, they
do so while citing only a certain translation found in the King James Bible from 1611. In
this version of the Bible, it is translated, or perhaps mistranslated as “For the Lord,
the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away...” – interpreted as God hating divorce
– but every major Biblical translation prior to that translated it differently. Meaning
the Latin Vulgate, Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible and so forth. In these translations,
as well as translations that came after, it is clear that it is referring a husband hating
his wife. Side note, the King James Version has largely fallen out of favor among many
Christians, except for Christian fundamentalists and Evangelical Protestants. Divorce itself is not sinful – only some
of the circumstances that can lead to divorce, such as infidelity and abuse. It is the divorce
that rescues the injured spouse, that ends the mistreatment. There are a number of verses
that show that God does not disapprove of divorce in and of itself but disapproves of
someone who dishonors their spouse and then divorces that spouse. To put more simply,
if partner A dishonors partner B, and partner A demands a divorce, that may compound the
sin of partner A, but if partner A dishonors partner B and partner B demands a divorce,
that is both acceptable and righteous. Partner B cannot be expected to remain in a marriage
that has been dishonored by Partner A. Now, what about no-fault divorce? Well, if both
are willing, and there is no injured party, then nobody has been dishonored, and God,
in turn, appears to find no fault. In Fireproof, this is not brought up. Divorce is simply
sinful in and of itself. When Caleb learns his Christian co-worker was once married and
got a divorce, he is shocked, and the co-worker is ashamed. Not about anything that may have happened
in the marriage but for the mere fact that the marriage ended. Throughout the film, there
are several references to Caleb and his suspicious internet browser history. This is portrayed
as a personal failing and practically adultery against his wife. Is...pleasuring yourself
a sin? No. Socially conservative Christians sometimes point to the Book of Genesis and
the story of Onan in Chapter 38, particularly the part about “spilling his seed,” but
that is actually a reference to Onan not providing a heir. It is not a reference to, you know,
that. Admittedly, there is some Biblical support for this being a sin – lust, in general,
is sinful. Matthew Chapter 5, Verse 28 goes pretty hard on this. “But I say to you that
everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with
her in his heart.” That is challenging to dispute, but it is also difficult to believe
that God considers thinking about something the same as doing it. There is no “Thou
Shalt Not Think About Murder.” or “Don't Even Think About Dishonoring Your Mother and
Father.” A more charitable interpretation of this verse from the Gospel of Matthew is
that it is a warning that lust may lead to adultery and that Christ was using fanciful
language to make a point, which he often did. In other words, one could argue that lust
is frowned upon by God because of what it might lead to, and Caleb is not hurting himself
because of his internet habits. In the end, Caleb and Catherine reconcile
and have a second wedding. The minister says that this is now a true marriage because only
now is it built on a foundation of faith. There is little in the movie about Catherine
and her relationship with God, but whatever. Pureflix has dozens of other Christian romance
movies, but I am being honest, I tapped out at three. Watching media with wildly different
politics and philosophies than my own is one thing. I do that all the time – but the
movies are obnoxious, and frankly, pretty boring, too. By comparison, Left Behind is
a much more exciting film. God's Not Dead is more engaging. These movies are too dry
and flavorless to appeal to people who have not already bought into its message. These
movies are not converting anyone to Christianity, they are reaffirming socially conservative
Christianity for socially conservative Christians – portraying people of faith as righteous
heroes in a world of sin. The Pureflix description for Old Fashioned reads “A small-town business
owner and young woman attempt the impossible: committing to a God-honoring relationship
in a contemporary America.” What? What are you talking about? Most people in the United
States are Christians, and an even more vast majority believe in God. This isn't about
God, it's about conservatism. When it comes to relationships, socially conservative Christians
do not listen to pragmatic advice. Abstinence before marriage does not lead to
a better physical relationship life during marriage. Abstinence education does not lead
to less unplanned pregnancies. Marrying quickly and before living together first does not
prepare a couple for marriage. Divorce can lead to more happiness than an unhappy marriage.
You can tell socially conservative Christians all the statistics about romance and physical
relations that you want, and they will still reject them because their priority is not
pleasing their partner, it is pleasing God, and maintaining a hierarchy that they believe
has been divinely ordained. Their primary concern is not whether or not the marriage
will be fulfilling but whether or not the marriage is tainted with a nebulous “sin”
– an unseen and impossible-to-quantify invisible mark upon the soul. It does not matter that
contraception is better at preventing unwanted pregnancies than abstinence education – because
the outcome is irrelevant. Only the sin matters, and to them, premarital relations is a sin.
It does not matter that divorce is sometimes the only option for either partner to be happy
or the only way to escape an abusive relationship. Only the sin matters, and to them, divorce
is a sin. Socially conservative Christians cannot simply look at the data and come to
the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with consenting adults enjoying each other,
or that there is nothing wrong with separating when a relationship is no longer tenable – because
to them, both are supernaturally wrong. They cannot be dissuaded from this belief
through earthly means that do not address their supernatural beliefs. That is why examining
their canonical texts and showing that other interpretations exist can be more useful than
all the available data. If they are not even willing to entertain other interpretations,
well, this is always going to be romance to socially conservative Christians: a relationship
under the rule of invisible influence and guided through a culturally biased interpretation
of writings from thousands of years ago – many of which are simply letters to churches and
instructions for a specific group of unrelated people. Gooood luck with that.
Hold on let me get this off my chest. [Ahem] PureFlix? More like PureShit! Eh? Eh? Okay I'm out.