GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure

133.4K posts

GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure banner
GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure

GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure

@guyschultz

To serve Him and enjoy Him forever. Christian; מאזני צדק אבני צדק איפה צדק והין צדק יהיו לכם

Katılım Aralık 2010
102 Takip Edilen601 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure
@TheRabbitHole You're right that "bigotry did it" is the laziest, most intellectually bankrupt move in modern discourse — the single-bullet Theory-of-Everything that requires no evidence, no trade-offs, no behavioral data, just an accusation and a demand for power. Helen Pluckrose has eviscerated this exact move better than anyone: it is the postmodern knowledge principle applied like a sledgehammer — all disparities are socially constructed by dominant discourses to maintain power, therefore the only acceptable explanation is bigotry, and anyone offering a more complex account is morally complicit. But here's the brutal irony you keep missing. When it comes to black–white outcome gaps in the United States, the actual historical record delivers exactly the kind of centuries-long, institutionally embedded, legally enforced, theologically defended bigotry that the woke falsely invent for everything else. This isn't CRT. This isn't Marx, Hegel, Foucault, or Kimberlé Crenshaw. This is pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment, pre-woke Christian (and later secular) doctrine all by an unbroken series of collective of fathers governing in evil as good-- yoking thrones/governments and churches with statutes and doctrines of wickedness against a phenotype of black or brown skin and an African Ancestry from conception in the name of Jesus: → the Curse of Ham → Aristotelian natural slavery → papal bulls (Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex) → Iberian limpieza de sangre → Southern Presbyterian/General Assembly pronouncements → Southern Baptist & Methodist confessions that declared Africans "inhereditarily inferior by divine decree" These weren't fringe opinions. They were the overwhelming normative consensus in church and state for 90%+ of the 580 years of African presence in the Americas (1440s–2020s). PSALMS 94:20 direct violation normatively: Psalm 94:20 English Standard Version 20 Can wicked rulers be allied with you, those who frame[a] injustice by statute? The Democratic Party the seedbed for the Southern Baptist and Southern Presbyterian conventions and the Confederacy— the most powerful political and Jesus representing institutions in every territory where blacks were the majority population from 1800 to 1970 — explicitly built its coalition on white supremacy. The largest Protestant denominations in the South formally taught that black inferiority was part of God's created order. Even the "good guys" (Republicans) only opposed the expansion of slavery — not the underlying racial hierarchy itself. They fought a war that killed 400,000 men to stop slavery's spread, yet the majority of them still believed blacks were inferior and should never have social equality. Yet here is the savage irony that almost no one on the anti-woke right will face: When it comes to black–white gaps in America, @HPluckrose herself says the explanation actually is centuries of explicit, legally enforced, theologically defended racism of a kind and intensity almost unknown in human history. Her exact words (28 Oct 2023): “The failure of so many contemporary critical theorists of race to recognise this comes down largely to CRT & its offshoots being an American phenomenon looking at the experiences of black descendants of enslaved Africans which is a very specific history! Does this history include systemic racism? Quite clearly it does starting with not being allowed to own yourself & then segregation & being legally second class citizens not allowed to enter lucrative professions, redlining, crap schools etc. The strongest indicator of whether somebody will be successful is if their parents are. It might take more than a couple of generations of being legally allowed to be successful to overcome the effects of all that.” That is Helen Pluckrose , not @ibramxk . And she is right—because this goes deep into the Judeo-Christian roots America claims to cherish. The justifying doctrines weren't fringe. They were baked into rabbinic, patristic, and confessional theology for millennia. Check the nearly a century of resolutions, overtures, Annual meeting declarations and joint statements, like the SBC repudiating its use of the Curse of Ham in 2017/18 and @SBTS and others declaring the founders of those denominations heretics. → 400–500 CE (Jerusalem Talmud, Taanit 1:6): Midrash on the Flood punishes Ham for ark misconduct by emerging "darkened" (mefucham, pun on his name), linking blackness to sin's consequence—the seed of racialized curses. → 400–500 CE (Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 49b): "Ten kavim of drunkenness" descend to the world; Kushites (Black Africans) take nine—first clear negative trope in core rabbinic texts, clustering impairment with Blackness. → 500 CE (Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 31b/Shabbat 31b; Sotah midrash): An innocent accused woman's "dark skin" (shchorot) is "blessed" by birthing light-skinned children—implying fairness as divine favor, darkness as lesser/default. → 800–900 CE (Saadia Gaon, Genesis commentary): Equates Ham’s line (Cushites) with "dark slaves," fusing biblical exegesis to emerging slave trades. → 1000–1250 CE (Medieval Sephardic/Ashkenazic thought): Amid Reconquista and Almohad persecutions, exegeses tie Ham/Cush to perpetual enslavement via Curse of Ham (Gen 9:20–27), influenced by Mediterranean African slave trades. → 1400s (Alba Bible, folio 33r): Illuminated Castilian Hebrew Bible depicts Ham—the father of Kush/Ethiopia—as a Black African gazing at Noah's nakedness, while Shem/Japheth avert theirs. Commissioned by a Spanish churchman, painted by Christians, translated by Rabbi Moses Arragel. These fed straight into Protestant America’s “Judeo-Christian ethic”: → Curse of Ham/Canaan twisted for perpetual African servitude/inferiority → Mark of Cain reinterpreted as blackness → Babel’s Table of Nations as God-ordained racial hierarchies → Aristotelian “natural slavery” fused with scripture → 1857 Southern Presbyterian General Assembly: “The African race… by nature and by the curse pronounced upon Canaan, doomed to perpetual servitude” → R.L. Dabney (Reformed theologian, Stonewall Jackson’s chief of staff): “ The black race… is constitutionally inferior” Start at 1526 (San Miguel de Gualdape, SC/GA)—first enslaved Africans on continental US soil, under the 1518 Royal Charter (Charles V’s asiento for 4,000 “Christian” Africans as commodities, rooted in 1452–1493 papal bulls and Ham curses). Key codifications: → 1640 (John Punch ruling, Virginia): First judicial lifetime enslavement by race—Punch (Black) gets life; white runaways get 4 extra years. → 1662 (Virginia Hereditary Slavery Law): Partus sequitur ventrem—“all children borne… shalbe held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother.” A Psalms 94:20 abomination, ensuring perpetual racial chattel via mothers’ wombs. Imagine if reformed biblically: Partus sequitur patrem—“the seed, name, blessing follow the father” (1 Cor 7:14; Num 1; Ezra 2). Children free if fathers free; fornicators wed or dower the mother/child; deniers of seed cursed. No dynasty of bondage. End of normative consensus: 1965 Voting Rights Act—outlawing Jim Crow segregation/disenfranchisement. Total: 1526–2025 = 499 years. Normative evil (slavery/Jim Crow): 1526–1965 = 439 years. 88% of US history under legally enforced racial subordination as the political/religious norm. You, @elonmusk, @ConceptualJames, @colinwright keep saying: once a poisonous idea is made normative, it takes roughly as long to exit the system as it took to enter. That leaves centuries of inertia—by your logic. And we still name buildings after the architects. Still platform “benevolent institution” apologists. Still fly Confederate “heritage.” So yes—in every other context, “bigotry!” is lazy, anti-scientific, authoritarian. But for Black American outcomes? The null hypothesis is millennia of theology-fueled, state-sponsored subjugation. Even Pluckrose sees it. The rest of you are closing your eyes and working backwards to pretend what has been was not as you conflate Queer theory, trans ideology and all the rest with the call to biblical justice along racial lines that is symmetrical to all that is in place for Native Americans via treaty commitments and the London Debt Agreement that enabled Germany to pay reparations to Jewish Holocaust victims and their infants. @AJKocman @joe_rigney @douglaswils @alisa_childers @VanJones68 @Pontifex @JoshDaws @ThaddeusWill @nhannahjones @christopherrufo @nbusenitz @jarbitro @megbasham @the_jefferymead @LarryTaunton @JohnMPerkins @drtonyevans @conservmillen @ryanbomberger @SlowToWrite @ConradMbewe @JustinPetersMin @CollinRugg @YourCalvinist @hbcharlesjr @tomascol @LigonDuncan @MattWalshBlog @Jimdavis79 @ThabitiAnyabwil @pastordmack @kangminlee @TheLaurenChen @NeilShenvi @megynkelly @D_B_Harrison @glennbeck @Ty_Seidule @HenryLouisGates @SethDillon @thatsKAIZEN
GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure tweet mediaGSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure tweet mediaGSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure tweet mediaGSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure tweet media
English
3
3
6
2.3K
GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure
Then the question should be have you viewed porn in your mind. Lusted with your eyes. That was the porn in scripture. So as exposited by reformed Christians and purity culture, damaged goods is how non- virgins were characterized. There is no such reference to sleeping with every partner a guy or girl has been with. The point isn’t whether or not the Lord forgive. The point is whether or not the church and applying the word of God has counsel, youth young adults to pursue purity and to avoid those who are pure sexually who have had sexual intercourse. This is the basis by which it is expected that anyone who follows Christ would be Responding in surprise to someone stating that their wife was promiscuous. That’s the point. And after that, it’s would you advise your child your grandchild to pursue someone who is not a virgin all else equal versus someone who is a virgin? Also should every pastor elder and Deacon list whether or not their wife was promiscuous or their husband was promiscuous before or after marriage?
English
0
0
0
5
🌷 LIZZIE🌷
🌷 LIZZIE🌷@farmingandJesus·
@DadaAlpaca No it’s not a gotcha , it’s a mirror. Women should stay away from you then because you’re a pervert? It’s exactly the same :)
English
2
0
1
50
🌷 LIZZIE🌷
🌷 LIZZIE🌷@farmingandJesus·
Does he not know that Jesus makes all things new? My near 10 year Christian marriage is a testament to the new life Christ gives sinners. We all have a past… marry the woman the Lord leads you to regardless of her past. Jesus threw it in the sea and dressed her in white, the reformed “Ho” no longer wears scarlet. Ps there was a Ho in Jesus lineage ;)
Papa Alpaca | Grand Inquisitor@DadaAlpaca

No. Regardless of how meaninglessly sparse this hypothetical is, a sexually inexperienced man marrying a reformed ho is a terrible idea that zero Christians should endorse.

English
21
8
196
8K
autocorrect2.0
autocorrect2.0@autocorrect2_0·
If there was a rule that if you had watched pornography in the last year, then you couldn’t fix your tongue to call women whores, the “Christian” male red pill community would disappear over night. And we all know it.
English
44
31
533
19.6K
🌷 LIZZIE🌷
🌷 LIZZIE🌷@farmingandJesus·
@ImprecatoryOne Let’s be consistent then and desire a man for daughters that’s never watched porn. Ever.
English
7
1
19
1.3K
🌷 LIZZIE🌷
🌷 LIZZIE🌷@farmingandJesus·
I believe the men who shame repentant women for promiscuity before Christ have porn addictions.
English
810
67
1.3K
1M
GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure retweetledi
K Hammer
K Hammer@HammertimeK8·
@TrevorSheatz @MattWalshBlog I promise it does not benefit your children for your sexual sins to be made known, except in cases where there’s a good chance they’d hear about it from someone other than you first.
English
0
1
4
177
Raptorexelic
Raptorexelic@raptorexelic·
@TrevorSheatz @MattWalshBlog Saying your wife is more pure than most virgins is full of vanity and boastfullness. No matter how much you try and beat this dead horse, the fact remains that the critiques of your post are valid.
English
1
0
0
23
Matt Walsh
Matt Walsh@MattWalshBlog·
My take on the current discourse about the Christian man with the formerly “promiscuous” wife is that many of the comments towards the man and his wife have been uncharitable, cruel, and certainly un-Christian, but also that Christians these days often tend to be far too eager to tell the entire world about their past sins, which in most cases shows a lack of discretion and a certain lack of the sort of shame one should feel even for repented sins. Also, as a parent, I strongly believe that you generally should avoid telling your kids about your own wayward youth, because the kids will take such stories as an indication that they too can go off and have fun sinning and things will turn out okay, just as they did for you. Also you undermine your own moral authority when you instruct your children not to do the very things you have admitted to having done yourself. Finally, the man’s line about how his wife “is more pure than most virgins” is prideful and shows a kind of competitiveness and vanity that should simply not ever appear in any Prodigal Son style testimony. Imagine if the Prodigal Son had returned and announced himself not only repentant but “more pure” than the brother who stayed? It would kind of destroy the point of the story. So in summary I basically disagree with everyone on this.
English
458
366
8.1K
580.1K
GG^D
GG^D@ggud81818·
@davidbellow @TrevorSheatz @MattWalshBlog He explained it, a virgin without a saving faith in the Lord is not pure in any sense from the eyes of God. It should be convicting the conscience. Stumbling in one part of the law is guilty of breaking all of it
English
1
0
7
89
GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure retweetledi
Rage Reads
Rage Reads@RageRead·
In the past, formerly promiscuous Christian woman would go to desert for 40 days as a means to repent. Now they make a social media brand and a business model out of it. And the worst thing is, nobody is allowed to point out the hypocrisy for the fear of being called not a true Christian.
Allie Beth Stuckey@conservmillen

.@TrevorSheatz and @AshleySheatz went viral this week after Trevor shared part of Ashley’s testimony on X, which included a mention of her pre-conversion sexual promiscuity. The backlash was massive, not just from non-believers, but from Christians and conservatives, too. People denigrated Ashley’s looks and mocked Trevor for humiliating his wife. But the critics have it all wrong. Ashley joins me to set the story straight — and to give a detailed testimony of her life before and after Christ. God saved her out of the New Age, drug addiction, and demonic oppression, into a new life in Jesus. Tune in tonight. May God be glorified.

English
35
74
824
23K
🌷 LIZZIE🌷
🌷 LIZZIE🌷@farmingandJesus·
PERIOD!
Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey@RelatablewABS

The backlash to @TrevorSheatz’s viral X post has been HUGE. Some people responded saying, "I can't believe you just called your wife a wh*re." He did not call his wife that. You called his wife that. You called another man's wife that. You called a new creation— someone redeemed by Christ, sanctified, made new, and washed clean— a wh*re. That is on you. Not her husband. The hyper patriarchy bros who call themselves Christians out there who just want to take any opportunity not only to denigrate women, but to denigrate the work of the Gospel… it's just insane. It's a very obvious tenet of Christianity that you have become a new creation. Somehow that’s now being treated like it’s controversial?

CY
6
5
93
2.2K
GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure
GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure@guyschultz

1/ @jgkragt@ostrachan @conservmillen @michaeljknowles @benshapiro @LizzieMarbach @tomascol @joe_rigney This is an open letter to evangelicals at the cross-section of broadcasted repentance, purity culture, discernment, and modesty in the Reformed and conservative tradition. Dr. Ostrachan, you rightly said her former culture was destroying a generation. Redemption did pull her out. But the very purity culture you and many of us affirmed framed her—and women like her—as “damaged goods,” “used up,” a wilted rose who would expose her future husband to every partner she’d slept with. Young people were explicitly told: if you don’t stay a virgin, you will be sleeping with every partner your spouse has ever had—and you will be undesirable. That was the foundational lens in youth formation ministries across Presbyterian, Baptist, and Reformed circles for decades. All else being equal, would you counsel your child to marry the virgin or the person with sexual experience? Would you steer them toward the virgin or the school jock who’s been with multiples—even if both are now committed to Jesus? The “damaged goods” argument was normative. No one is saying you can’t marry someone with a past. The point is that purity culture and Reformed teaching normatively treated known promiscuity as a negative—especially for women. It shaped how we viewed desirability, marriage prospects, and even wedding symbolism: you couldn’t wear pure white if you’d been sexually active (off-white or ivory was the quiet compromise). That wasn’t fringe; it was the mark. You cannot loudly affirm that purity culture—which stamped her exactly that way—and then act surprised when people groomed by it react with shock to a husband publicly testifying about his wife’s past before millions. We’re not talking about private repentance or confession to a pastor. We’re talking about broadcasting a spouse’s sexual history to the world—including their children’s friends, nieces, nephews, and church kids. That has never been the standard. The church taught, lived, and modeled the opposite: keep it close—in women’s discipleship groups, young-adult ministries, or pre-marital counseling. Discretion and modesty weren’t optional; they were treated as biblical virtues. Had there been teen pregnancies or multiple children from multiple partners, the same ministries—shaped by the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and the broader purity movement—would have quietly steered young people away. The doctrine was consistent: becoming “one flesh” meant you inherited the relational and spiritual consequences of everyone who came before. That wasn’t cruelty; it was the logical outworking of the teaching we all absorbed. So when people push back against public exposure, they’re not inventing a new standard. They’re applying the one they were discipled under. You can’t celebrate the culture that called her “used goods” and then condemn the very caution—and yes, the quiet shaming—it produced. We were taught both the weight of shame for sin and the hope of shining redemption. That tension shaped us. Let’s be brutally consistent: •Should we shame those who truly repent? No. •Should we now encourage every young woman to publicly broadcast post-repentance exactly how many partners she’s had? No. •Should we condemn those who choose modesty and discretion instead? Also no. The historic Christian norm—and I would argue a biblical virtue—has been modesty and discretion, not exhibitionism. Publicly airing your spouse’s past sins before millions is not “bold transparency.” It is the opposite of honoring your mother and father, and it directly contradicts the guardrails the church actually modeled. The idea that a husband pronouncing his wife was promiscuous before marriage “should not be shocking” ignores the very training evangelicals gave teens and young adults: be shocked by that.

QME
0
0
0
1
GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure
GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure@guyschultz

1/ @jgkragt@ostrachan @conservmillen @michaeljknowles @benshapiro @LizzieMarbach @tomascol @joe_rigney This is an open letter to evangelicals at the cross-section of broadcasted repentance, purity culture, discernment, and modesty in the Reformed and conservative tradition. Dr. Ostrachan, you rightly said her former culture was destroying a generation. Redemption did pull her out. But the very purity culture you and many of us affirmed framed her—and women like her—as “damaged goods,” “used up,” a wilted rose who would expose her future husband to every partner she’d slept with. Young people were explicitly told: if you don’t stay a virgin, you will be sleeping with every partner your spouse has ever had—and you will be undesirable. That was the foundational lens in youth formation ministries across Presbyterian, Baptist, and Reformed circles for decades. All else being equal, would you counsel your child to marry the virgin or the person with sexual experience? Would you steer them toward the virgin or the school jock who’s been with multiples—even if both are now committed to Jesus? The “damaged goods” argument was normative. No one is saying you can’t marry someone with a past. The point is that purity culture and Reformed teaching normatively treated known promiscuity as a negative—especially for women. It shaped how we viewed desirability, marriage prospects, and even wedding symbolism: you couldn’t wear pure white if you’d been sexually active (off-white or ivory was the quiet compromise). That wasn’t fringe; it was the mark. You cannot loudly affirm that purity culture—which stamped her exactly that way—and then act surprised when people groomed by it react with shock to a husband publicly testifying about his wife’s past before millions. We’re not talking about private repentance or confession to a pastor. We’re talking about broadcasting a spouse’s sexual history to the world—including their children’s friends, nieces, nephews, and church kids. That has never been the standard. The church taught, lived, and modeled the opposite: keep it close—in women’s discipleship groups, young-adult ministries, or pre-marital counseling. Discretion and modesty weren’t optional; they were treated as biblical virtues. Had there been teen pregnancies or multiple children from multiple partners, the same ministries—shaped by the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and the broader purity movement—would have quietly steered young people away. The doctrine was consistent: becoming “one flesh” meant you inherited the relational and spiritual consequences of everyone who came before. That wasn’t cruelty; it was the logical outworking of the teaching we all absorbed. So when people push back against public exposure, they’re not inventing a new standard. They’re applying the one they were discipled under. You can’t celebrate the culture that called her “used goods” and then condemn the very caution—and yes, the quiet shaming—it produced. We were taught both the weight of shame for sin and the hope of shining redemption. That tension shaped us. Let’s be brutally consistent: •Should we shame those who truly repent? No. •Should we now encourage every young woman to publicly broadcast post-repentance exactly how many partners she’s had? No. •Should we condemn those who choose modesty and discretion instead? Also no. The historic Christian norm—and I would argue a biblical virtue—has been modesty and discretion, not exhibitionism. Publicly airing your spouse’s past sins before millions is not “bold transparency.” It is the opposite of honoring your mother and father, and it directly contradicts the guardrails the church actually modeled. The idea that a husband pronouncing his wife was promiscuous before marriage “should not be shocking” ignores the very training evangelicals gave teens and young adults: be shocked by that.

QME
0
0
0
2
PropheticPatriarch ♱
PropheticPatriarch ♱@HeraldOfPurity·
Professing Christian men who: 1) hate on women for their sinful pasts, shame and attack their testimonies, even when those women have had a radical change of heart since coming to Christ 2) downplay the moral harm of their own porn consumption and the damage it causes, or even justify its use, and blame women for their own sexual sins, 3) boast about their own superiority and talk about virgin women as if they're some sort of sexual reward they're entitled to They don't come across as men worthy of either salvation or marriage, since that attitude is wholly incompatible with what the Christian Gospel represents and with what a healthy relationship with both God and other people requires.
English
61
41
303
7.9K
𝕊𝕠𝕝𝕒 ℂ𝕙𝕒𝕕 🎚️
Since when do Christians NOT celebrate redemption and repentance? Some of the things I’ve seen this week are extremely disheartening. Throughout Scripture, we see God’s people redeemed and restored time and again: •David—adultery and murder. Forgiven (2 Samuel 12:13) •Thomas—doubt and unbelief. Restored (John 20:27–29) •Jonah—rebellion against God. Restored (Jonah 2:1–10) •Peter—denied Christ three times. Restored (John 21:15–17) •Zacchaeus—fraud and extortion. Saved (Luke 19:8–10) •Rahab—prostitution. Redeemed (Joshua 6:25; Hebrews 11:31) •Thief on the cross—criminal sin. Saved (Luke 23:42–43) •Woman caught in adultery—sexual immorality. Forgiven (John 8:10–11) •Paul—persecuted the church. Forgiven (1 Timothy 1:13–16) •Manasseh—idolatry and child sacrifice. Forgiven (2 Chronicles 33:12–13) Those are some pretty egregious sins, and yet we celebrate their testimonies. But when @TrevorSheatz shares the testimony of his wife, @AshleySheatz (who has her testimony pinned to her profile), professing Christians hurl insults and minimize the grace and love of our Savior. If you have a similar story and choose not to tell, that’s your prerogative. But this was their story and they’ve chosen to share what God has redeemed her from. It’s concerning to see people who speak of Christ’s grace, yet fail to reflect it in how they treat others.
English
93
70
660
10.5K
GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure
GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure@guyschultz

1/ @jgkragt@ostrachan @conservmillen @michaeljknowles @benshapiro @LizzieMarbach @tomascol @joe_rigney This is an open letter to evangelicals at the cross-section of broadcasted repentance, purity culture, discernment, and modesty in the Reformed and conservative tradition. Dr. Ostrachan, you rightly said her former culture was destroying a generation. Redemption did pull her out. But the very purity culture you and many of us affirmed framed her—and women like her—as “damaged goods,” “used up,” a wilted rose who would expose her future husband to every partner she’d slept with. Young people were explicitly told: if you don’t stay a virgin, you will be sleeping with every partner your spouse has ever had—and you will be undesirable. That was the foundational lens in youth formation ministries across Presbyterian, Baptist, and Reformed circles for decades. All else being equal, would you counsel your child to marry the virgin or the person with sexual experience? Would you steer them toward the virgin or the school jock who’s been with multiples—even if both are now committed to Jesus? The “damaged goods” argument was normative. No one is saying you can’t marry someone with a past. The point is that purity culture and Reformed teaching normatively treated known promiscuity as a negative—especially for women. It shaped how we viewed desirability, marriage prospects, and even wedding symbolism: you couldn’t wear pure white if you’d been sexually active (off-white or ivory was the quiet compromise). That wasn’t fringe; it was the mark. You cannot loudly affirm that purity culture—which stamped her exactly that way—and then act surprised when people groomed by it react with shock to a husband publicly testifying about his wife’s past before millions. We’re not talking about private repentance or confession to a pastor. We’re talking about broadcasting a spouse’s sexual history to the world—including their children’s friends, nieces, nephews, and church kids. That has never been the standard. The church taught, lived, and modeled the opposite: keep it close—in women’s discipleship groups, young-adult ministries, or pre-marital counseling. Discretion and modesty weren’t optional; they were treated as biblical virtues. Had there been teen pregnancies or multiple children from multiple partners, the same ministries—shaped by the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and the broader purity movement—would have quietly steered young people away. The doctrine was consistent: becoming “one flesh” meant you inherited the relational and spiritual consequences of everyone who came before. That wasn’t cruelty; it was the logical outworking of the teaching we all absorbed. So when people push back against public exposure, they’re not inventing a new standard. They’re applying the one they were discipled under. You can’t celebrate the culture that called her “used goods” and then condemn the very caution—and yes, the quiet shaming—it produced. We were taught both the weight of shame for sin and the hope of shining redemption. That tension shaped us. Let’s be brutally consistent: •Should we shame those who truly repent? No. •Should we now encourage every young woman to publicly broadcast post-repentance exactly how many partners she’s had? No. •Should we condemn those who choose modesty and discretion instead? Also no. The historic Christian norm—and I would argue a biblical virtue—has been modesty and discretion, not exhibitionism. Publicly airing your spouse’s past sins before millions is not “bold transparency.” It is the opposite of honoring your mother and father, and it directly contradicts the guardrails the church actually modeled. The idea that a husband pronouncing his wife was promiscuous before marriage “should not be shocking” ignores the very training evangelicals gave teens and young adults: be shocked by that.

QME
0
0
0
1
GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure
@banxton11 @DelusiveAlly @LizzieMarbach @kangminlee Not normal. The thing that purity culture has groomed x.com/guyschultz/sta…
GSchultz, Honest weights & equal measure@guyschultz

1/ @jgkragt@ostrachan @conservmillen @michaeljknowles @benshapiro @LizzieMarbach @tomascol @joe_rigney This is an open letter to evangelicals at the cross-section of broadcasted repentance, purity culture, discernment, and modesty in the Reformed and conservative tradition. Dr. Ostrachan, you rightly said her former culture was destroying a generation. Redemption did pull her out. But the very purity culture you and many of us affirmed framed her—and women like her—as “damaged goods,” “used up,” a wilted rose who would expose her future husband to every partner she’d slept with. Young people were explicitly told: if you don’t stay a virgin, you will be sleeping with every partner your spouse has ever had—and you will be undesirable. That was the foundational lens in youth formation ministries across Presbyterian, Baptist, and Reformed circles for decades. All else being equal, would you counsel your child to marry the virgin or the person with sexual experience? Would you steer them toward the virgin or the school jock who’s been with multiples—even if both are now committed to Jesus? The “damaged goods” argument was normative. No one is saying you can’t marry someone with a past. The point is that purity culture and Reformed teaching normatively treated known promiscuity as a negative—especially for women. It shaped how we viewed desirability, marriage prospects, and even wedding symbolism: you couldn’t wear pure white if you’d been sexually active (off-white or ivory was the quiet compromise). That wasn’t fringe; it was the mark. You cannot loudly affirm that purity culture—which stamped her exactly that way—and then act surprised when people groomed by it react with shock to a husband publicly testifying about his wife’s past before millions. We’re not talking about private repentance or confession to a pastor. We’re talking about broadcasting a spouse’s sexual history to the world—including their children’s friends, nieces, nephews, and church kids. That has never been the standard. The church taught, lived, and modeled the opposite: keep it close—in women’s discipleship groups, young-adult ministries, or pre-marital counseling. Discretion and modesty weren’t optional; they were treated as biblical virtues. Had there been teen pregnancies or multiple children from multiple partners, the same ministries—shaped by the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and the broader purity movement—would have quietly steered young people away. The doctrine was consistent: becoming “one flesh” meant you inherited the relational and spiritual consequences of everyone who came before. That wasn’t cruelty; it was the logical outworking of the teaching we all absorbed. So when people push back against public exposure, they’re not inventing a new standard. They’re applying the one they were discipled under. You can’t celebrate the culture that called her “used goods” and then condemn the very caution—and yes, the quiet shaming—it produced. We were taught both the weight of shame for sin and the hope of shining redemption. That tension shaped us. Let’s be brutally consistent: •Should we shame those who truly repent? No. •Should we now encourage every young woman to publicly broadcast post-repentance exactly how many partners she’s had? No. •Should we condemn those who choose modesty and discretion instead? Also no. The historic Christian norm—and I would argue a biblical virtue—has been modesty and discretion, not exhibitionism. Publicly airing your spouse’s past sins before millions is not “bold transparency.” It is the opposite of honoring your mother and father, and it directly contradicts the guardrails the church actually modeled. The idea that a husband pronouncing his wife was promiscuous before marriage “should not be shocking” ignores the very training evangelicals gave teens and young adults: be shocked by that.

English
0
0
0
2