A Fantasy Theme Analysis of Christian Dating Books Loren ..., Exams of Literature

Download A Fantasy Theme Analysis of Christian Dating Books Loren ... and more Exams Literature in PDF only on Docsity! Westmont College Romantic Relationships in the Evangelical Mind: A Fantasy Theme Analysis of Christian Dating Books Loren Schneider COM-199 Major Honors Dr. Elizabeth Gardner, Dr. Blake Victor Kent, Dr. Felicia Song 15 April 2022 Schneider 2 Introduction Within the auditorium, hundreds of Christian young adults gather for their weekly service. As friend greets friend, laughter and chatter abound, and quick greetings interrupt a few deeper conversations. Amidst the noise, one college-age man says to another, “I just feel like I’m ready for my season of singleness to be over, you know?” Nearby, a young woman sighs to her sister, murmuring, “I just wish he would stop playing around and take me seriously.” Comments such as these may seem personal or even trivial, pertaining only to the individuals who speak them, but their expression in fact serves to reinforce shared understandings in the wider community. In particular, such comments contribute to conceptions of love, dating, and relationships within evangelical Christianity. These conceptions are expressed, reinforced, and internalized in realms of discourse including sermons, Bible studies, conversations, magazines, and books, constructing understandings of romantic relationships in evangelical minds that are shared by other members of the community. In American Christian communities, particularly ones characterized by evangelicalism, a pervasive construction of dating, sexuality, and relationships called purity culture emerged by the 1990s. This subculture of evangelicalism, despite significant criticism, still informs the lives and relationships of adolescent and adult Christians. Through the lens of symbolic convergence theory and fantasy theme analysis, this paper examines a sample of evangelical dating literature for emergent themes adhering to and departing from purity culture’s notions. While fantasy themes reminiscent of purity culture, including marriage as a reward and individual impotence, do exist within the literature, fantasy themes of marriage as sacred and individual agency also emerge, suggesting a shift in evangelical constructions of romantic relationships away from purity culture ideas and toward notions of empowerment. The presence of these inconsistent Schneider 5 These developments ushered in a new era of Sexual Revolution through the 1960’s and 70’s, followed by a progressive, sexualized culture. While this culture was welcomed and praised by many secular citizens, some Christians were also able to apply the culture’s emphasis on sexuality to subvert traditional sex roles and female subordination. Women like Marabel Morgan, who detailed a healthy marital sex life in her book Total Woman, revolutionized “evangelical marriage through separating sex from sin and liberating their own sexual pleasure” (5-6). However, many other evangelicals opposed the Sexual Revolution because it appeared to threaten “the family unit” as well as traditional gender and sex roles (6). American Evangelical Christianity In order to understand evangelical opposition to the Sexual Revolution, one must understand the fundamental aspects of American Christian evangelicalism. Evangelical Christians comprise a significant portion of the American populace; about 25% of American citizens identify as evangelical Christians (“Religious Landscape Study”). Evangelicals are not bound to any particular denomination of Christianity but take part in the broader Protestant tradition (Larsen and Treier 2). Their belief system is characterized by four fundamental qualities: conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism (Bebbington 3), which is to say they “emphasize conversion experiences; an active laity sharing the gospel and engaged in good works; the Bible; and salvation through the work of Christ on the cross” (Larsen and Treier 1). As a function of their activism in particular, evangelicals are outspoken socially and politically. Evangelical Protestant groups comprise 18% of religious activism organizations in Washington D.C. (“Lobbying for the Faithful”), and six evangelical Protestant activist groups are among the top 40 groups of highest annual advocacy spending in the nation (“Major Characteristics of Religious Advocacy Groups”). Evangelicals are especially “passionate about issues of sexuality” Schneider 6 (Reinis 9), including issues of the Sexual Revolution like abortion and homosexuality (Sheehan 6). Evangelical views on these matters stem primarily from their beliefs concerning marriage and family. Focus on the Family, an organization intimately connected with American evangelicalism, outlines such beliefs: “The institution of marriage is a sacred covenant designed by God to model the love of Christ for His people and to serve both the public and private good as the basic building block of human civilization. Marriage is intended by God to be a thriving, lifelong relationship between a man and a woman [...] Children are a heritage from God and a blessing from His hand. Parents are therefore accountable to Him for raising, shaping and preparing them for a life of service to His Kingdom and to humanity [...] Human beings are created by God in His image. Therefore every person, from conception to natural death, possesses inherent dignity and immeasurable worth—including preborn children [...] Christians, then, are called to defend, protect, and value all human life.” (“Foundational Values”) Because of their convictions that God created marriage to exist between one man and one woman and that all human life, including that of the unborn, is sacred, evangelicals generally oppose homosexuality and abortion. As the Sexual Revolution championed these topics and challenged traditional evangelical beliefs, the evangelical community began to rally in countermovements. The Rise of Abstinence Movements and Purity Culture In the wake of the Sexual Revolution, and in the face of a sexualized culture, both evangelical and secular Americans were concerned by the rise in HIV, AIDS, and teenage Schneider 7 pregnancy. This concern led some to launch abstinence-only campaigns, noting that sexual abstinence is helpful in preventing such problems. Indeed, both secular and religious lobbyists advocated for state- and federally-sponsored abstinence education programs, resulting in the passage of federal legislation that required “sexual abstinence education in U.S. public schools” (Gardner 2) in the 1980s (Santelli et al. 75). In public schools, abstinence education marketed sexual abstinence as the solution for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, increased rates of teenage pregnancy, and increased rates of abortion without explicit references to religion or faith systems. By the 1990s, an evangelical expression of the abstinence movement manifested itself in a phenomenon called “purity culture,” which constructs abstinence as a moral and spiritual issue. Beyond championing abstinence as a means to physical and sexual health, purity culture “link[ed] abstinence to evangelical Christian morality, sexual purity, and heterosexual marriage” (Williams 21). Drawing from biblical texts, this vein of evangelicals cast sexual purity as an indicator of holiness and sanctification (1 Thessalonians 4:31), a marker of one’s standing before God and before the Christian community. With such holiness as motivation, purity culture encouraged “young people to pledge their commitment to wait to have sex until marriage” (Gardner 3). By 1993, this movement included large gatherings such as True Love Waits rallies, each rally resulting in hundreds of teenagers pledging to save their virginity for their spouse (6). Joshua Harris One teenager participating in the evangelical abstinence movement was Joshua Harris. Influenced by its tenets, he believed that Christians had to radically change their approach to dating in order for teenagers to successfully save sex for marriage. In 1997, at age 21, he released 1 “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality.” Schneider 10 purity culture literature is benevolent sexism, which articulates that women are weaker than men and thus require male protection (Klement and Sagarin 208). This concept reinforces patriarchal structures while portraying a male-dominated system as beneficial for women (Moon and Reger 58, 61). Scholars note benevolent sexism primarily in discussions of biblical gender roles, where women are called to submit under their husband’s leadership for their own good (63). Sexist expressions relate to dehumanizing language in purity culture literature, primarily in the objectification of women and the animalization of men. Sexually pure women are often described as treasures or gemstones (64), signifying great value, whereas impure women are considered to be disposable styrofoam cups, chipped china, or other damaged goods (Gish 16). Metaphors such as these describe a woman’s worth as conditional; she is desirable and thus valuable to a consumer only if she maintains sexual purity. Men, too, are not exempt from dehumanization in purity culture; they are animalized, described as beasts ruled by a biological impulse to procreate (Klement and Sagarin 209, Moon and Reger 64). Controlled by their desires, they are without agency or choice. Further, the notion that men are ruled by lust contributes to a common rape myth, which contends that rape is a natural consequence of the male sex drive. That is, this rape myth articulates that if a man is truly overcome by lust, he is unable to stop himself from assaulting or raping another person (Klement and Sagarin 215). This perspective lends itself to victim-blaming; if an assault is not the fault of the perpetrator, who is overcome by sexual desire, then blame falls to the victim. Purity culture has also been criticized over the past decade for its constructions of virginity, sex, and marriage. In particular, the objectification of women described above results in a fear-based construction of virginity. Purity culture (implicitly and explicitly) equates a woman’s virginity with her very self, articulating that women not only damage their sexual Schneider 11 purity but also diminish their value as human beings through extramarital sexual activity. It is thus out of fear of losing their worth as individuals that women are encouraged to remain abstinent, not out of a value for virginity itself. A second “carrot dangled as motivation for pursuing sexual abstinence [is] the promise of heterosexual marriage [and] sex” (Welcher 79). That is, evangelicals in purity culture assert that individuals will receive ecstatic sex within marriage as a reward for their premarital abstinence and purity. In this way, evangelicals used the promise of sex to encourage chastity (Gardner 19). This strategy elevates marriage, placing it “on a pedestal” (Welcher 7). Indeed, in purity culture, marital sex is glorified to the extent that that adolescents informed by the movement believe that the consummation of their future marriage will “complete” them (7). However, even in this elevation and glorification, marriage is devalued within purity culture. It is constructed as a means to an end; it is desired because it is a conduit for sex, not because it has any inherent value. About twenty years after such criticisms aired, Joshua Harris, the icon of evangelical purity culture, released a public apology for the damage caused by his book (Picheta). In doing so, he indicated that members of the evangelical community can change their minds and their narratives about dating. Indeed, since I Kissed Dating Goodbye was originally published in 1997, evangelical Christian dating literature has seen a shift in constructions of romantic relationships; as some metaphors and narratives present within the literature contribute to fantasy themes reminiscent of purity culture, authors in recent years have adjusted their language to form fantasy themes departing from purity culture’s problematic notions. Texts To engage with this topic, I selected a purposive sample of Christian books on relationships, dating, and sexuality published from 1997, the year I Kissed Dating Goodbye was Schneider 12 originally published, to 2020. Further criteria for selection included evangelical Christian affiliation and popularity, with the understanding that popularity suggests influence in the Christian community. The criterion for evangelical Christian affiliation was met if a book explicitly mentioned God, Christianity, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit and if the author’s biographical statements confirmed their adherence to the faith at the time of writing. The criterion for popularity was met if a book had at least 20,000 copies sold and was featured on Amazon best- seller lists in categories related to Christianity, dating, relationships, and sexuality. The final sample of books analyzed includes I Kissed Dating Goodbye: A New Attitude Toward Romance and Relationships and Boy Meets Girl: Say Hello to Courtship by Joshua Harris, I Gave Dating a Chance: A Biblical Perspective to Balance the Extremes by Jeramy Clark, And the Bride Wore White: Seven Secrets to Sexual Purity by Dannah Gresh, Loveology: God. Love. Marriage. Sex. And the Never-Ending Story of Male and Female. by John Mark Comer, Single, Dating, Engaged, Married: Navigating Life and Love in the Modern Age by Ben Stuart, and Relationship Goals: How to Win at Dating, Marriage, and Sex by Michael Todd. Methodology Symbolic Convergence Theory and Fantasy Theme Analysis To examine these dating books and elucidate themes, this project draws on Ernest Bormann’s symbolic convergence theory. This theory considers “communication as a means to seek common grounds among discourse participants” and focuses on social realities shared by group members (Kafle 18). Central to symbolic convergence theory are the concepts of fantasy themes and rhetorical visions. Fantasy themes are “imaginative and creative interpretation[s] of events” (Bormann, “The Symbolic Convergence Theory of Communication” 52) that develop through the sharing of Schneider 15 In this study, I incorporate symbolic convergence theory and fantasy theme analysis to identify symbolic cues within evangelical dating literature, examine emergent themes, and characterize the evangelical group consciousness as it pertains to romantic relationships. To assist in this venture, I also analyze metaphors and narratives as both can represent and allude to fantasy themes within discourse. Metaphor Analysis Metaphors are implicit comparisons that allow an individual to conceptualize and experience one thing in terms of another (Lakoff and Johnson 7). They “prime how [people] think and act,” providing frameworks for thought and behavior that align with perceptions of reality (Geary 100). In terms of symbolic convergence theory, metaphors serve as symbolic cues for fantasy themes; invocations of familiar metaphors in the discourse of a particular social context symbolize, indicate, and represent shared perceptions of reality. In this way, analysis of a group’s metaphors provides key insight into its shared perceptions, fantasy themes, and rhetorical visions. Metaphor analysis, put simply, is “a method for understanding how metaphors shape meaning, appeal to audiences, and influence the decisions of a community” (Kornfield 110). In assessing how metaphors function within a text, a metaphor critic must examine the text for a general sense of its context and isolate the metaphors within it (Foss 272). From here, the critic should sort the metaphors into groups according to the referent (the object described) or the metaphor itself and then explain the function of the metaphor within the text (273). In short, the critic must categorize and interpret the metaphors, identifying how each metaphor represents understandings of reality in the given text or discourse. Schneider 16 Prior research has examined metaphors through the lens of fantasy theme analysis. For instance, scholars Stephen Perry and Amanda Roesch conducted a fantasy theme analysis of tributes posted after the death of Mister Rogers, noting the function of religious metaphor in the construction of fans’ shared themes and rhetorical visions (1). In this study, some emergent fantasy themes were characterized entirely by their metaphorical content (e.g. fantasy themes of Rogers as an angel and a saint), indicating the possibility for a metaphor to function exactly as a fantasy theme. Another fantasy theme analysis, one examining political cartoons concerning the Clinton-Lewinksy affair, indicated how metaphors (e.g. Starr’s leaks as a tsunami, Lewinsky as a tornado) contributed to a fantasy theme of a threat to the White House (Benoit et al. 390). This study, rather than presenting metaphors as fantasy themes, presented them as building blocks used to construct a fantasy theme. Thus, these studies indicate multiple functions of metaphor within fantasy theme analysis, and both emphasize the usefulness of metaphors in constructing a group’s rhetorical vision. Narrative Analysis Like metaphor, narratives also serve to represent or develop fantasy themes within discourse. In communication studies, narrative is understood to be the foundation of human communication and a primary mode through which humans construct meaning within their lives (Fisher 4). That is, narratives are “stories constituting the fabric of social reality for those who compose them” (7). As “humans think in narratives, speak in narratives, interpret events through narratives, and assume our world will conform to expectations established through narratives” (Kornfield 47), they incorporate storytelling in order to make sense of their perceptions and contribute to their group’s understanding of reality. Schneider 17 To elucidate such understandings, one must conduct the process of narrative criticism. This process is a form of communication analysis that demonstrates “how narratives influence particular audiences and larger cultures” (46). Narrative criticism is done by “examining the story, the combination of the plot, characters, and settings” of a particular text or discourse and focusing on the function of characters, events, and themes present within the narrative (52). Once these aspects and their functions are identified, the critic is able to make inferences about the speaker or author’s perceptions of reality, what he or she believes to be true. The function of narratives in discourse is similar to the function of fantasy themes according to symbolic convergence theory; both are employed in constructing perceptions of reality. Thus, fantasy theme analysis can be conducted upon a group’s narratives in order to understand that group’s rhetorical visions. For instance, in previous literature, scholars have employed fantasy theme analysis and symbolic convergence theory to examine ex-Christians’ post-conversion narratives (Simmons 117). This study emphasized the function of narrative components, especially characters and plot, in constructing fantasy themes. Individuals often cast themselves as victims or heroes relentlessly pursuing truth and cast believers (and God himself) as villains. From such narratives, fantasies of victimization, enlightenment, a cruel God, and religious hypocrisy emerged, reflecting a wider rhetorical vision that considers de-conversion as an exodus from oppression to enlightenment (117, 133). In a similar vein, I examine several types of narratives, including biblical stories, fairy-tales, and testimonies, and include elements of narrative analysis within this study in order to elucidate fantasy themes present within evangelical dating discourse. Emergent Fantasy Themes Schneider 20 striving to become like her Heavenly Father; when he has become good enough, the princess should accept and marry him. In this way, a man endeavors to prove himself worthy of a pure wife, marriage becomes the reward for developing his character; in Clark’s fairy-tale presentation, the man’s works have earned him an intimate relationship. For the woman, on the other hand, marriage is a reward for maintaining her standards and waiting for a prince rather than compromising her virtue and settling for a barbarian. In presenting marriage in such a way, Clark contributes to the fantasy theme of marriage as a reward. This fantasy theme is reminiscent of purity culture’s notions. Namely, while purity culture portrays marriage as a reward for abstinence, these authors portray it as a reward for good behavior and hard work. The similarity of these two concepts suggests an influence of purity culture upon evangelical dating literature, especially upon authors Harris and Clark. Marriage as Sacred Inconsistent with (and yet not entirely antithetical to) the first theme, a fantasy theme of marriage as sacred also emerges in evangelical dating discourse. This fantasy theme develops through evangelical authors’ use of metaphors to describe sex, singleness, dating, and marriage itself; these metaphors portray a high value for marriage and ultimately attribute this value to marriage’s depiction of God and his church. On Sex Within evangelical dating literature, sex is often described with nature metaphors, particularly concerning fire and water. In Joshua Harris’s second publication, Boy Meets Girl: An Introduction to Courtship, he writes that God “was the one who invented marriage so that the blazing fire of romantic love could become something even more beautiful—a pulsing, red-hot ember of covenant love in marriage” (35). He continues to reference the “fires of romantic zeal” Schneider 21 throughout the book (85). Emphasizing fire’s beauty and heat, Harris’s metaphor implies that sex is likewise desirable, beautiful, and sensual. Ben Stuart incorporates this same metaphor in Single, Dating, Engaged, Married, writing that “fire can be a lot of fun, but outside of its proper boundaries, it can do serious damage. When contained, fire can be a source of great warmth and life […] Sex is the same way” (Stuart 114). Unlike Harris, Stuart also uses the fire metaphor to explicitly address sex’s bend toward destruction. He invokes “serious damage” and the need for “contain[ment]” as a warning to his readers. For him, sex isn’t just warm and playful; it’s dangerous. If people engage in sex in the wrong context, he argues, they’ll get burned. To argue the same notion, Michael Todd compares sex to water. In Relationship Goals, he writes, “When water is properly contained and channeled, it can turn electrical turbines and provide light and power for an entire city [...] What is water when its full power is uncontained and on the loose? Hurricanes, floods. It’s destruction. Or it leaks into where it’s not supposed to be and causes rust, mildew, and rot […] What does it look like when we’re having sex outside of marriage? It looks like destruction.” (Todd 103) Like Harris, Todd recognizes that sex can be good, and yet like Stuart, Todd describes the irrevocable damage wreaked by extramarital sex, warning his readers to avoid such a danger. Destruction and flourishing are both possible with sex, but proper containment and context allow the latter. These metaphors call to mind elements of the evangelical abstinence movement. At its inception and in response to the Sexual Revolution, evangelicals feared increases in premarital sex because of corresponding rates of abortion, teenage pregnancy, and sexually transmitted Schneider 22 diseases. This anxiety is still evident as authors include fear-based appeals in their arguments against extramarital sex. Sex is described as good only when it is contained; outside of proper containment—which is to say, outside of marriage—evangelicals consider sex a disaster waiting to happen. On Singleness Nature metaphors also appear in evangelical descriptions of singleness. Primarily, evangelicals use the metaphor of a season to describe this status. Seasonal language is familiar in the Christian tradition (e.g., Ecclesiastes 3:12), as the religion stemmed from a primarily agrarian culture that relied upon seasonal transitions to plant and harvest crops. In evangelical dating literature, nature metaphors compare the passage of time to a person’s life and experiences, indicating that events, states of being, and understandings shift and change just as winter turns to spring. Evangelical authors incorporate seasonal metaphors to argue that singleness is a passing phase in one’s life. For example, Joshua Harris writes that “any season of singleness is a gift from God [...] I think that we should view our singleness as a special season of our lives” (I Kissed Dating Goodbye 79). Likewise, Ben Stuart references walking “through [a] season of singleness” (54). Comparing singleness to the natural seasons in this way implies a finite duration, as if singleness will not last forever but will eventually transition into a new and different phase. However, this may not be the case; singleness might not actually lead into a season of marriage. For some, singleness is lifelong, and the notion that singleness should be temporary can cause immense disappointment and insecurity in the mind and heart of a long- term single person (Marus 48). As evangelicals primarily “create space for [singleness] only as a 2 “For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven.” Schneider 25 understanding the person they’re involved with or understanding the true commitment that marriage is. In these ways, this metaphor is limiting. On Marriage Despite their limitations, the metaphors for sex, singleness, and dating in the evangelical literature clearly illustrate an evangelical understanding that marriage is of high value. That is, as authors describe marriage as the only proper context for sex, the desirable subsequent of singleness, and the purpose and destination of dating, they construct it to be of immense significance in the evangelical mind. That significance is due to the metaphorical understanding that marriage is a picture. Ben Stuart says, “As we step into this marriage bond, we become a living picture of God’s wonderful union with his people” (206). Michael Todd concurs, writing, “A marriage between a man and a woman who have godly relationship goals offers the best picture we have to understand the relationship between God and his beloved people” (42). Both of these authors understand the marriage of a man and a woman to reflect the relationship God has with his people, and they thus describe marriage as something that portrays and encapsulates this relationship. Conceptualizing marriage as a picture in this way results in an understanding that it is holy, a representative of a relationship that transcends any earthly one. While metaphors concerning sex, singleness, and dating contribute to a high value of marriage within the evangelical community, the metaphor of marriage as a picture solidifies an understanding of marital holiness and transcendence in the evangelical social reality. The combination and repetition of these metaphors throughout evangelical dating literature allows a fantasy theme depicting marriage as sacred to form and chain out, contrasting with the fantasy theme depicting marriage as a reward. Schneider 26 Individual Impotence Along with themes concerning marriage, evangelical rhetoric harbors fantasy themes considering individuals. Through the circulation of objectifying metaphors and victim-blaming narratives, concepts reminiscent of purity culture, individuals are presented as powerless or less than human in some evangelical dating books. Such presentations of individuals contribute to a third fantasy theme, a theme of individual impotence. Objectification appears in evangelical metaphors concerning dating and marriage. In I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Harris implements a metaphor comparing dating to shopping, particularly as he discusses when an individual should enter a dating relationship. He writes, “If I’m not in a position to pay in the cold, hard cash of commitment, I have no business going shopping for my future mate” (Harris 78). Here, Harris’s basic claim is that people shouldn’t date unless they are willing and able to commit fully to their partner; essentially, he argues that “you don’t need to shop for what you can’t afford” (78). However, his use of metaphor implies more. As he describes commitment as “cold, hard cash” instead of a down payment or a swipe of a credit card, he signifies that commitment must be up-front and tangible before the relationship should take place. In doing so, he suggests that relationships are inherently transactional, drawing parallels to a market economy; without some form of payment, his potential romantic partner should not exchange her goods, whether physical or emotional. As Harris continues to describe dating as “shopping for my future mate,” his language objectifies any potential romantic partner (78). When one goes shopping, he examines the features of a good, tries it on, or takes it for a test run. If he doesn’t like the goods available at one place, he can go to another store in search of a different one, for goods are exchangeable, interchangeable, and ultimately designed to please the consumer. This depiction strips Harris’s “future mate” of agency, value, and Schneider 27 humanity (Harris 78); if she is a good, she must not have needs or wants of her own. If she is a good, she is interchangeable with every other woman. If she is a good, she is an object: replaceable and disposable, kept only as long as she meets the desires of her consumer. To internalize that dating is simply shopping for a mate, then, is to objectify any potential romantic partner one might encounter and to approach romantic relationships with a dehumanizing consumerist approach. Another metaphor, one describing marriage as ownership, also contributes to the concept of objectification. In I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Harris writes, “I cannot ‘own’ someone outside of marriage” (52). The implication, of course, is that he can own someone within it. Jeramy Clark also incorporates this metaphor in I Gave Dating a Chance, arguing that “married people own each other to a certain extent” (Clark 91). Harris and Clark likely employ this metaphor to represent the unique claim a married person has on his or her spouse’s body and sexual activity, but the connotation of these comments goes beyond this claim to imply possession and control. In marriage, possession and control can look like one spouse dominating the other, dictating what is and isn’t allowed without compromise or dialogue. In the traditional evangelical family structure, this concept most probably serves to promote a patriarchal society and family dynamic in which the husband dominates the submissive wife. Extending the notion of domination and submission, the narrative of David and Bathsheba also plays into objectification and impotence in evangelical dating rhetoric. Joshua Harris references this narrative as he focuses on the characterization of and the plot surrounding King David. In I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Harris writes, “Few stories in the Bible fill me with as much dread as the story of David’s fall into sin with Bathsheba. If a righteous man like David could fall into adultery and murder, who on earth can claim to be safe from temptation?” (88). Schneider 30 Bathsheba at fault for the affair, a sense of victim-blaming is purported, even as Bathsheba is constructed to be powerless throughout the affair. In all these ways–as humans are constructed as objects, as perpetrators are absolved, as victims are blamed–impotence becomes an apparent theme in evangelical dating discourse. That is, as evangelical literature contributes to the dehumanization of romantic partners and various rape myths, the literature removes individuals from power in their relationships. Objectified individuals have no agency or innate worth within their relationship, assaulters are constructed as powerless when they are powerful, and victims are blamed even when they have no responsibility over their situation. Individual Agency Even as notions of impotence lurk in evangelical dating literature, a conflicting fantasy theme of individual agency also lingers within the texts. This theme, emerging through biblical, fairy-tale, and testimonial narratives, indicates the individual’s power to choose, to act, and to thus dictate the outcome of his or her life and relationships. Beyond contributing to the theme of marriage as a reward, the narrative of Isaac and Rebekah also functions to construct this fantasy theme. Ben Stuart’s approach to this narrative centers not on Rebekah, who busies herself while waiting for a spouse to come along, but on Isaac (rather, the servant sent on behalf of Isaac) who actively searches for a spouse. Stuart presents the narrative as “a dating case study” (131), articulating several steps to spouse-hunting derived from the narrative’s plot line. He writes, “Go to the right place […] go where the workers are [...] surrender the search [to God…] look for a gracious person [... and] look for someone who is ready to live by faith” (138-148). Stuart gleans these steps from the servant’s decisions to wait by a well, to pray, and to test Rebekah’s character to see if she was suitable to marry Isaac. As he highlights the servant’s actions and decisions in searching for Isaac’s spouse, Schneider 31 Stuart encourages his readers to act in a similar way, recognizing that his readers’ decisions and actions can lead them, too, to a suitable spouse. Stuart considers spouse-hunting to be an active process, not a simple reward; thus, he characterizes spouse-hunters as agentic, able to choose, act, and thus influence the outcome of their lives through their search for and discovery of a spouse. Further, Stuart’s account of this biblical narrative also acknowledges that Rebekah made a conscious decision to marry Issac; “she [was] asked directly: Will you go?” (147). As she accepted the offer, she left her family and followed the servant to meet her betrothed. This question clearly expresses notions of agency; it was Rebekah who determined her own betrothal, it was Rebekah who chose to follow the servant. Her path was not made for her but by her. The evangelical fairy-tale narrative also highlights personal agency in one’s love story. In And the Bride Wore White, Dannah Gresh writes, “You are a princess. Your behavior and the choices you make must be governed by [the] value [of that identity] if you are aiming for the sunset ending in your love story” (Gresh 79). Here, Gresh characterizes the princess by her behavior, choices, and identity, arguing that the princess’s actions make her happy ending possible and dictate her life’s course and happiness. While this sentiment is overstated–failing to address the decisions and choices made by the prince, for instance–it does ascribe significant responsibility to the princess and emphasizes the importance of her decision-making. In Gresh’s mind, the princess has the agency to choose how she will act; thus, she may determine how her life and love story will progress. The fantasy theme of agency chains out further in evangelical authors’ testimony narratives. Each of the following passages evidence traditional elements of a conversion testimonial; Harris, Stuart, and Todd each describe their sinful behavior as well as their conviction to change that behavior, noting the (implicit or explicit) appearance of God that Schneider 32 contributed to the change. However, their narratives focus not on a shift from secular to religious life but on a shift from problematic sexual or relational behavior to more virtuous and godly behavior, thus describing a relational conversion. As the authors describe their relational conversion stories, they cast themselves as primary characters and God as a secondary character within their narratives, indicating an understanding that individuals are the main actors and agents of change in their own lives. In I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Joshua Harris recounts his own conversion story, saying, “My own self-centered approach to romance started young [...] by the time I reached junior high I had embraced a very ungodly attitude toward relationships [...] I was enslaved to lust, and girls were nothing more than objects to satisfy my desire [...] The fact that I remained a virgin during those years is, to be honest, a miracle. It had everything to do with God’s mercy and nothing to do with any self-control or virtue on my part [...] God convicted me of my disobedience through a message given [...] at a retreat I attended my freshman year in high school [...] I repented of my sin right then [...] but I still had a lot to learn” (15). In his recollection, Harris connects the change in his life to “God’s mercy,” noting that “God convicted [him]” at the high school retreat. This conviction apparently catalyzed the change in Harris’s behavior, yet Harris portrays himself as the primary actor in the narrative. Throughout his testimony, he describes himself with action and agency, writing, “I had embraced a very ungodly attitude toward relationships,” “I repented of my sin right then,” and, after his conversion, “I still had a lot to learn.” While God inspired change in Harris’s life, the change itself depended upon Harris’s choice to enact it. A similar notion appears in Single, Dating, Engaged, Married, where Ben Stuart writes, Schneider 35 highlight agency not only in one’s relational conversion but also in one’s pursuit of marriage. Thus, through testimonies, biblical retellings, and fairy-tale stories, the fantasy theme of individual agency chains out throughout evangelical dating discourse. Implications of Fantasy Themes Fantasy theme analysis, drawing from metaphor and narrative analysis, reveals four emergent fantasy themes that have chained out within evangelical dating discourse. These are themes of marriage as a reward, marriage as sacred, individual impotence, and individual agency, each of which carries a distinct set of implications that bear on the evangelical social reality. The fantasy theme of marriage as a reward is reminiscent of purity culture, particularly as the culture constructs marriage to be a reward for abstinence (Welcher 79). The notion of a reward is inherently transactional, indicating that a person can earn marriage by engaging in or abstaining from certain behaviors. In this way, the fantasy theme contributes to a works-based view of relationships, drawing from broader works-based theology. This type of theology holds that individuals may achieve their own salvation through their actions. While this theology is generally opposed in evangelical circles, as evangelicals definitionally believe that salvation is conducted by God through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and not through personal achievement (Larsen and Treier 1), accepting marriage as a reward subversively promotes a focus on works. That is, if an individual is able to earn marriage through adequate character development, hard work, and abstinence, should she not be able to earn salvation through similar achievement? Rather, if an individual is unable to experience salvation except by the grace and blessing of God, as evangelicals believe, it should also be true that individuals should not be able to experience marriage, nor singleness, nor even life itself but by similar grace and blessing. In this Schneider 36 way, the fantasy theme portraying marriage as a reward is theologically inconsistent with traditional evangelicalism. Along with this, constructing marriage primarily as a reward devalues the steps taken to earn marriage. That is, as an individual recognizes his need to be good enough or do enough in order to achieve marriage, the virtuous pursuits of character development, hard work, and abstinence become simply stepping-stones or items on a to-do list, and it is unlikely that he will engage such things for their own sakes. No longer does the individual do these things in order to please or glorify God; he does them out of a value for marriage. On the other hand, the fantasy theme of sacred marriage hearkens back to traditional Christian conceptualizations of marriage and suggests a shift away from purity culture’s constructions. While sex was overemphasized in purity culture, reducing marriage to a means to sexual intimacy and to a reward for abstinence, evangelical authors in recent years have emphasized a portrayal of marriage as an image of their beloved God and his beloved church. This view is historically and biblically accurate to the Christian tradition (e.g. Ephesians 5:22- 253), and it articulates the significance and holiness evangelicals ascribe to marriage. Implications of this view include a high value for both members of the married couple and a focus on God within the married relationship. First, as evangelicals construct marriage to be sacred, they do so because they consider it to represent God’s eternal, covenantal love for his people and Jesus Christ’s relationship with the church. Obviously, evangelicals hold a tremendously high value for God, for they consider God to be the creator of all things (Genesis 3 “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Schneider 37 1:14) and his son to be the savior of the world (John 3:175); thus, to compare one member of the marriage relationship to God is to attribute that member with significant value. Further, as evangelicals believe that God sacrificed his son for his chosen people out of love (John 3:166), to compare the other member of the marriage relationship to those chosen people suggests that the member is worthy of a similar love and commitment. This emphasis, too, demonstrates a high value for that member of the marriage relationship. Beyond ascribing immense value to both marriage partners, the comparison of a marriage to God’s relationship with the church serves to focus the marriage on God. Where considering marriage as a reward necessarily focuses on the individual, who is or is not doing enough to earn a marriage, a sacred marriage centers on the nature of God that is made known through the relationship. The marriage thus becomes about God, not only about the individuals within it. A fantasy theme of impotence within romantic relationships also chains out within evangelical dating books. This theme, like that of marriage as a reward, aligns with problematic notions within purity culture, particularly the objectification and dehumanization of individuals and the contribution to rape myths. Implications of this fantasy theme and its attendant notions are significant. Primarily, as they include objectifying language and invoke rape myths within their dating books, evangelical authors reinforce such issues within relationship contexts. That is, as some readers look toward evangelical dating books for advice on relationships, they might internalize fantasy themes that construct romantic partners as objects consumed for pleasure or normalize sexual aggression. This fantasy theme could thus perpetuate consumerist approaches 4 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” 5 “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” 6 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Schneider 40 outcomes of their lives, others depict them as impotent, diminishing not only an individual’s power but also one’s identity as a person. The existence of both of these fantasy themes–agency and impotence– reflects contrasting and inconsistent opinions within the evangelical community. It is impossible to reconcile these contradictory fantasy themes, yet all exist simultaneously within the evangelical rhetorical vision concerning dating and romantic relationships. However, if one pair of themes was to be privileged above the other, the construction of marriage as sacred and individuals as agentic would take precedence over the other themes. Fantasy themes of sacred marriage and agency were apparent in all books sampled within this paper, books that were published between 1997 (I Kissed Dating Goodbye) and 2020 (Relationship Goals). Because these themes have chained out across the literature and over a period of twenty-three years, it appears that they have sustained prominence and remain relevant in the evangelical rhetorical vision today. However, the pair of fantasy themes characterized by marriage as a reward and individual impotence has not chained out so thoroughly; these themes appear in three books within the sample, published in 1997 (I Kissed Dating Goodbye), 2000 (I Gave Dating a Chance), and 2012 (And the Bride Wore White). Due to the limited scope of these two themes, and because they have not been invoked consistently in the past decade, they appear to have a looser hold on the evangelical community. The fading of these two fantasy themes–marriage as a reward and individual impotence– throughout the 2010s suggests a shift away from notions reminiscent of purity culture. Multiple factors may be at work in driving this shift. First, evangelical authors might be wary of incorporating purity culture’s more problematic concepts. Purity culture has been criticized extensively over the past decade (e.g. Moon and Reger in 2014, Klement and Sagarin in 2017, and Welcher in 2020), so authors, perhaps fearing that their work will be criticized and their Schneider 41 messages thus discounted or ignored, might avoid invoking such contentious and controversial themes. Second, authors might consciously recognize that purity culture was flawed. Thus, instead of emphasizing the movement’s notions of rewards, objectification, and rape myths, the authors might choose to emphasize the sacredness of marriage and the agency of individuals because they believe such ideas align with the heart of evangelical Christianity. Whether due to one of these reasons, or to another entirely, a shift is present in the evangelical rhetorical vision of dating and romantic relationships. Perhaps this shift will continue over the next decade, further distancing evangelicals and their dating literature from the significant issues of purity culture. Conclusion Limitations within this research do exist. Primarily, the sample used for this study included seven evangelical dating books; including more books within the research may have revealed other fantasy themes or further developed fantasy themes noted within this paper. Further research may conduct a similar study with a greater scope of literature. Likewise, a fantasy theme analysis could be conducted with different mediums of evangelical discourse, such as sermons, blog posts, magazine articles, or podcasts, or with survey or interview responses in order to glean further perspectives on dating and romantic relationships within the evangelical community. Despite these limitations, this paper has elucidated four fantasy themes and a rhetorical vision concerning romantic relationships within evangelical Christianity. This research is significant on one hand because evangelical Protestants comprise about a quarter of the American population (“Religious Landscape Study”); thus, this paper provides insight into the rhetorical visions and social realities that inform the attitudes and behaviors of a substantial Schneider 42 percentage of the American populace. If a quarter of the nation’s population is accepting particular messages about singleness, sex, dating, marriage, and agency, understanding the content and implications of these messages sheds light on the ways in which a significant amount of Americans consider and engage in romantic relationships. Along with this, such insights may contribute to deeper understandings of motivation within evangelical activism groups, particularly activism surrounding issues of sexuality. For instance, understanding the evangelical conceptions of marriage allows insight into the community’s treatment and activism concerning homosexual practices, unions, and marriages. Likewise, understanding the community’s conceptions of individual agency allows insight into their treatment of and activism concerning abortion, an issue commonly seen as related to an individual’s ability to make decisions on behalf of her own body. Such topics may also be avenues for future research. Schneider 45 I Survived I Kissed Dating Goodbye. Directed by Jessica Van Der Wyngaard, performance by Joshua Harris, DOCSology Productions, 2018. Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/ Survived-Kissed-Dating-Goodbye/dp/B07KRDGD5R. Kafle, Hem Raj. "Symbolic Convergence Theory: Revisiting its Relevance to Team Communication." International Journal of Communication, vol. 24, no. 1, 2014. Klement, Kathryn R., and Brad J. Sagarin. "Nobody Wants to Date a Whore: Rape-Supportive Messages in Women-Directed Christian Dating Books." Sexuality and Culture, vol. 21, no. 1, 2017, doi:10.1007/s12119-016-9390-x. Kornfield, Sarah. Contemporary Rhetorical Criticism. Strata Publishing, 2021. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, 1980. Larsen, Timothy, and Daniel J. Treier, editors. The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology. Cambridge University Press, 2007. “Lobbying for the Faithful.” Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project, Pew Research Center, 30 May 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/11/21/ lobbying-for-the-faithful-exec/. “Major Characteristics of Religious Advocacy Groups.” Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project, Pew Research Center, 31 Dec. 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/ religion/2011/11/21/lobbying-for-the-faithful-major-characteristics/. Marus, Rob. "Kissing Nonsense Goodbye." Christianity Today, vol. 45, no. 8, 11 June 2001, pp. 46-48. Moon, Sarah, and Jo Reger. ""You Are Not Your Own": Rape, Sexual Assault, and Consent in Evangelical Christian Dating Books." Journal of Integrated Social Sciences, vol. 4, no. 1, 2014, doi:https://www.jiss.org/documents/volume_4/issue_1/ Schneider 46 JISS%202014%204(1)%2055-74%20Christian%20Dating%20Books.pdf. Perry, Stephen D., and Amanda L. Roesch. “He’s in a New Neighborhood Now: Religious Fantasy Themes About Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.” Journal of Media & Religion, vol. 3, no. 4, Oct. 2004, pp. 199–218. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15328415jmr0304_2. Perreault, Gregory, and Patrick Ferrucci. “Punishing Brady, Redeeming Brady: A Fantasy Theme Analysis of Memes from the 2015 Deflategate Controversy.” Atlantic Journal of Communication, vol. 27, no. 3, July 2019, pp. 153–68. EBSCOhost, doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2019.1610761. Perreault, Mildred F., and Gregory Perreault. “Symbolic Convergence in the 2015 Duggar Scandal Crisis Communication.” Journal of Media & Religion, vol. 18, no. 3, July 2019, pp. 85–97. EBSCOhost, doi.org/10.1080/15348423.2019.1678945. Picheta, Rob. "Joshua Harris, a Former Pastor Who Wrote Relationship Book, Says His Marriage is Over and He is No Longer Christian." CNN, 29 July 2019, www.cnn.com/2019/07/29/ us/joshua-harris-divorce-apology-scli-intl/index.html. Reinis, Sara. More Precious Than Rubies: The Sexual Objectification of Women in Conservative Evangelical Discourse. 2014. Westmont College, Major Honors Thesis. “Religious Landscape Study.” Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project, Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/. Santelli, John, et al. "Abstinence and Abstinence-Only Education: A Review of U.S. Policies and Programs." Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 38, 2006, pp. 72-81. Sheehan, Rebecca J. American Sexual Culture: Women's Liberation, Rock Music, and Schneider 47 Evangelical Christianity, 1968-1976. University of Southern California, 2010. Simmons, Brian. “A Fantasy Theme Analysis of Ex-Christians’ Online Deconversion Narratives.” Northwest Journal of Communication, vol. 42, no. 1, Spring 2014, pp. 117–41. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db= cms&AN=95028268&site=ehost-live. Stuart, Ben. Single, Dating, Engaged, Married. W. Publishing, 2017. The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Crossway, 2016. Todd, Michael. Relationship Goals: How to Win at Dating, Marriage, and Sex. WaterBrook, 2020. Welcher, Rachel. Talking Back to Purity Culture: Rediscovering Faithful Christian Sexuality. InterVarsity Press, 2020. Williams, Jean Calterone. “Battling a ‘Sex-Saturated Society’: The Abstinence Movement and the Politics of Sex Education.” Sexualities, vol. 14, no. 4, Aug. 2011, pp. 416–443, doi:10.1177/1363460711406460.