by Halle West

As Americans, few of us do not know Christians, we probably know several types of Christians. As of 2020, seven out of every ten Americans identify themselves as Christians (PRRI). That is fourteen times the number of Americans who identify with another religion and nearly three times the population of Americans unaffiliated with any religion (PRRI). That makes 230.6 million Christians across the country. Within this group there is lots of diversity in belief, identification, ritual, and lifestyle. The three main categories which most groups fall into are mainstream Protestants, evangelical Protestants, and Catholics alongside some of the largest independent groups such as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) other known as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh Day Adventists. Many independent groups have unique practices and beliefs which are often misunderstood or generalized as kooky due to the smaller, more insulated nature of these communities of faith. Videos of faith healing or speaking tongues in worship circulate social media as memes or shock humor with little or no context because the nature of these religious services can appear somewhat jarring with the body movements and vocalizations associated. College campus protestors contribute a good bit of the general public’s association of intense purity culture with Christian churches from their public sermons to students about sexual purity, chastity, modest dress, marriage, and strict beliefs on sex and sexuality. Then there are those more guarded groups, such as members of the LDS church, where rites and rituals are more private versus how they present their faith to the general public. The question I seek to answer is how can all these beliefs and rituals exist under the same title as Christian? Are these practices fringe because they are kooky or are they fringe because they have harmful outcomes and questionable ethics?

The question I seek to answer is how can all these [diverse] beliefs and rituals exist under the same title as Christian? Are these practices fringe because they are kooky or are they fringe because they have harmful outcomes and questionable ethics?

In this essay we will zero in on mostly white Christians, making up four of ten Americans (PRRI), and examine the underpinnings of specific practices which are debated amongst the community due to their rejection in many progressive and mainstream congregations. I will use the LDS practice of baptism of the dead and evangelical and traditional family structures, child training, and gender-essentialist marriages specifically to demonstrate how these rites are justified while other groups do not employ them. Analyzing these, and other, groups use of the Bible to form new rituals and how they affect their practitioners, I seek to contrast benefit and harm in intent and execution. 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is well known for being unique in its rituals, however many of these practices are quite private even to its own members if they have not been initiated into the temple. Baptism of the dead is a lesser-known practice which most Christians of different denominations find foreign or even offensive. The LDS church explains this practice by citing the books of Paul and Peter to justify salvific vicarious acts, or actions performed on behalf of another to help them gain salvation (Paulsen et. al 109). This practice addressing the “logical tensions” between three basic propositions common to most groups which identify as Christians. These propositions can be summarized as; 1. God is love and wants all his children to be saved, 2. Salvation is achieved through the acceptance of Christ’s gift (this can manifest in many ways including baptism), and 3. So many of God’s children live their lives without exposure to the gospels and the chance to accept Jesus (Paulsen et. al 102). Jordan and McKay, hosts of the podcast Embracing Apostasy, describe the practice as a paramount temple ritual and discuss the shame attached to opting out of this practice as the goal was to baptize everyone who has lived since Jesus’ resurrection (4:49) so they all may be saved. This is the very first practice available to members of the LDS church, which can be done before being confirmed in the temple but after receiving the temple recommend. It is similar to an ID card for the LDS temple granted after interviews to gauge purity, one cannot enter the temple without one. Consequently, this is the one ritual which members under the age of 18 can participate in, who will not be aware of nearly ANY other rituals which are kept private even to others in the faith. These young LDS members do not have knowledge of the full scope of the beliefs and rituals of this church they are baptizing others into. This paired with the pressure within the church to participate in the practice, being told their ancestors will be upset with them when they reach the afterlife is a manipulative use of young believers.

These young LDS members do not have knowledge of the full scope of the beliefs and rituals of this church they are baptizing others into. This paired with the pressure within the church to participate in the practice, being told their ancestors will be upset with them when they reach the afterlife is a manipulative use of young believers.

Baptisms of the dead began two centuries ago with the founder of the faith, Joseph Smith, when he received a revelation at the Nauvoo temple, the second temple of the LDS church (Jordan, McKay 2:46). Being baptized by proxy after your death does not make you automatically a Mormon, rather you are given the opportunity to accept this baptism and be with God (Jordan, McKay 29:25). In the modern church, baptized members of the church with a temple recommend can baptize their “bio, step, adopted or fostered family lines, your own descendants, descendants of your family lines, possible ancestors [who are] probable but unverifiable (i.e. same last name or same area as your confirmed ancestors) as long as they are or have permission from the closest living relative” (18:00). As a universalizing religion in which evangelizing and converting those outside the church are central, this practice falls right in line: welcoming any and all people to salvation from their God, living or dead. However, the ethics of this practice are often called into question. Is it acceptable to posthumously baptize people who in their lifetime prescribed to another religion? Is it okay to baptize people who were members of the LDS church in their lifetime or were exposed to its principles and chose to reject it? 

How far can the argument of good faith and seeking salvation for others carry you? According to the LDS church there are lines that should not be crossed. In 1995, after meeting with Jewish leaders because the issue at hand had become so serious, the church disallowed baptisms of Jews who died in the Holocaust (except in the unlikely case that they have direct and confirmed familial relation to the Mormon wanting to baptize them). This same year the baptism of celebrities, with the above exceptions, was barred as well (Jordan, McKay 21:01). There are other Evangelical groups, historically and modernly, who take it upon themselves to convert Jews to Christianity and join Protestant churches. The Messianic Jewish movement includes congregational and missionary groups, other names used are Hebrew Christians and Jews for Jesus. One core value is that Messianic Jews are Jews and should continue to practice rabbinic tradition and observe the Torah but identify with the gentiles as saved (Kinzer) whereas Hebrew Christianity encourages Jews seeking “individual salvation through faith in the work of Jesus Christ, the true faith” (Dauermann qtd. in Kinzer) and to move away from Jewish places of worship and practices for full integration into Protestant congregations and practices. Like baptism of the dead, these beliefs show that in the face of reaching salvation through Jesus: pre-existing belief, culture, and consent become irrelevant. 

A prominent tenant in many Evangelical communities is fulfilling God’s desires for marriage.

Purity culture is very vague term when discussing the faith-based ideologies, in this essay we will talk about the specific Christian Evangelical flavor of it. Things which would generally fall under Evangelical purity culture include intense beliefs on modesty, chastity until marriage not only from intercourse but (depending on the group) also anything which may be considered intimate or sexual, masturbation, strict patriarchal gender roles, among other things. This culture has many overlapping ideologies, and in this case we will be discussing Quiverfull ideology and traditional Evangelical marriage structures. A prominent tenant in many Evangelical communities is fulfilling God’s desires for marriage. The umbrella of protection is a commonly used image to simplify this structure. It depicts three umbrellas, one over another, with the largest at the top covering the two below and each getting smaller beneath it. The top and largest umbrella is labelled Christ, the smaller one beneath it is labelled husband, and the smallest labelled as wife. It represents a principle that Christ is to the husband as the husband is to the wife. The Institute for Basic Life Principles has provided a guide on how to be a Godly wife and meet your husband’s basic needs. The Institute of Basic Life Principles (IBLP) is a non-denominational collection of ministries founded by minister Bill Gothard, and they describe their goal as “introducing people to the Lord Jesus Christ, and [are dedicated] to giving individuals, families, churches, schools, communities, governments, and businesses clear instruction and training on how to find success by following God’s principles” (IBLP). I must note before discussing their “instruction” that they have on many occasions been accused of predatory behavior and described as a cult. Additionally their founder Bill Gothard has resigned following numerous accusations of enslaving and sexually assaulting young girls and women. Back to meeting the needs of your husband (the husband’s needs specifically as much of the onus of keeping the marriage happy, healthy, and stable is on the wife), these needs are defined as being loyal and supportive, honoring your husband’s leadership, developing your inward and outward beauty, making appeals instead of demands, understanding his need for time alone with God, being grateful, and being worthy of praise from others (IBLP). 

Reverence for the husband is important; this is manifested in unquestioning obedience, encouragement, service, and submission. “God works through a husband’s decisions, whether they are good or bad decisions. Bad decisions reveal a man’s needs and give his wife the opportunity to appeal and grow in Godly character,” a wife’s job is unconditional support and continuous bettering of herself for the sake of her husband (IBLP). If she does not fulfill this role, she will “crush her husband’s spirit by resisting his decisions.” Another way a wife may crush her husband’s spirit is resisting physical intimacy or making “foolish” decisions. While it is portrayed as the husband having God-given supremacy and leadership skills over the household and family, seemingly the wife wields a massive amount of power in that her smallest faults can simply rip her man apart. If she is to seek self-sufficiency, or advice from someone other than him, or fail to utilize self-control, such as to not lose her baby weight quickly enough post-partum, she brings shame to her husband and displays disrespect. Another important tenant is to “demonstrate a meek and quiet spirit” (IBLP). it is further explained that this includes letting go of all expectations of your husband to focus on your responsibilities as it is not your job to judge your husband, it is God’s (however it IS seemingly your husband’s job to judge you). Under this doctrine women are instructed to make themselves as small and quiet as possible, to only exist in the shadow of your husband (or for young women your father and future husband), and to have no purpose other than to serve God through serving your husband and raising your children. The article is littered with Bible verses which it claims support their instruction. This doctrine is delivered to millions at conferences, in homeschooling handbooks, in church sermons and youth groups—millions of little girls are taught that their path to serving God is relieving themselves of full personhood to find their purpose in submission and motherhood. 

Under this doctrine women are instructed to make themselves as small and quiet as possible, to only exist in the shadow of your husband (or for young women your father and future husband), and to have no purpose other than to serve God through serving your husband and raising your children.

One thing which makes Evangelical beliefs and communities unique from other Christians and non-believers is the militaristic, us versus them, aspect tying these ideas together. “Lo, children are [the] heritage of the Lord: And the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows in the hand of a mighty man; So are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them” (KJV Ps 127: 3-5). The one role in which women are given power is motherhood. Evangelical wives are encouraged not only to forego contraception and employ what is called natural family planning, but to actively try to have as many pregnancies as possible. “’Quiverfull mothers think of their children as no mere movement but as an army they’re building for God,’ and that they are ’domestic warriors’” (Joyce qtd. in Harrison, Rowley p. 50). These women’s one job in which they are praised an encouraged for their own actions, rather than their husband’s or children’s, requires them to sacrifice their bodies to produce as many children as they can. It is paramount to produce more Christians, foot soldiers, to fight the culture war against modern, progressive values surrounding gender, marriage, and motherhood. As a proxy form of missionary work, Evangelicals are encouraged not only to share the faith and convert the masses to Christianity but to also produce Christians to increase their numbers. I personally was taught through private Christian education to don the “armor of God” including the sword of the spirit and the helmet of salvation to fight the everyday war for God and the souls of non-Christians. Consequently child training must be emphasized, the soldiers must be trained; homeschooling, corporal punishment, and clear teachings of who is us and who is them are all necessary to produce the ideal child who will go out and fight for their faith. 

Consequently child training must be emphasized, the soldiers must be trained; homeschooling, corporal punishment, and clear teachings of who is us and who is them are all necessary to produce the ideal child who will go out and fight for their faith.

The doctrine of submission is also used in parenting, or more specifically child training, and the desired role of children. The same submission wives which are instructed to center in their marriage is employed in parent-child relationships as well. Wives are taught that they should not rely upon their own judgement ever but instead rely wholly on their husband. A similar constant doubt is sowed in children under child training practices. Talia Lavin quotes a popular author of Evangelical parenting books, Ted Tripp, on the importance of firm corporal punishment, “your children need to understand that they have defected from God and are covenant-breakers” (pt I). These defections from God, defined in both testimonies in Lavin’s article and child training books, are described as acts of disobedience or rebellion which should be identified and met with discipline from ages as early as 5-18 months old (pt. II). It is also widely preached that “He hath spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes,” (KJV prv 13:24) and that is truly an act of love and the only way to steer their child towards spiritual wellbeing. Methods suggested to teach a baby, toddler, or child that they have wronged God through “the vehicle for instruction” (Dobson qtd. in Lavin): pain, include striking the bare bottom or thighs with the bare hand, a paddle, a rod, or squeezing the trapezius muscle at the base of the neck. Women are told if they “fail to demonstrate loyalty, genuine love, and a servant’s heart, [their] appeal will probably not be accepted [by their husbands]” (IBLP), issues of their needs being met hinge upon having the proper meek attitude and timing their request (or as IBLP advocates: appeals over demands) perfectly as to not inconvenience their husband and with their needs and wants. Children are taught that they must respond to their punishment with the proper attitude because “children who cry too hard after spankings are being manipulative, and should be spanked again, to silence their tears” (Lavin). 

These practices implant, early on, a connection between the pain inflicted by someone you trust and that person’s love for you, and an understanding that when you are hurt you are to take it quietly and look inward to find what they have done wrong and how they can be better.

These practices implant, early on, a connection between the pain inflicted by someone you trust and that person’s love for you, and an understanding that when you are hurt you are to take it quietly and look inward to find what they have done wrong and how they can be better. Further, in a culture which has such strong convictions surrounding sexuality, chastity, and purity the inherent shame a young girl is subjected to by having to remove her clothing to be struck on her bottom by a parent, generally a father, forms more connections of this love and pain to sexuality. “Children have emerging sexual identities. And if even one percent of them perceive spanking as a sex act, we are violating too many kids” (Keenan qtd. in Lavin pt. II). When any adult mentions using a paddle or spanking unrelated to children, they are understood to be discussing private, sexual acts; when it is used on children all perceived sexual nature falls away somehow. But does it fall away on the child’s end? A woman recalls her childhood in Lavin’s article saying “Every position I was put in as a child to be hit is also a sexual position that adults use. The muscle memory is still very liked and there are times that my partner and I have to stop interacting because I am having a flashback” (Katherine Mitchell qtd. in Lavin). She describes something very important in this horrific recount: stopping. With children from infancy shown that to resist someone who loves you hurting you is an offense to God and will lead to only more pain and shame and groups like IBLP telling married or seeking to be married women “resistance or indifference to your husband’s need for physical intimacy is the unspoken crushing of his spirit,” it is a blessing that some victims can heal and re-find their “willful” spirit their parents meant to beat out of them and stand up for themselves. The cycles of abuse are built and preserved with each generation that is raised with these values and grows up to bring up their children the same way. 

We must find a balance between respecting and supporting Americans’ faith while also minimizing physically, emotionally, and spiritually harmful practices.

Seven of every ten Americans are Christians, many people have described this country as culturally Christian and while I do not wholly agree the pervasiveness of Christianity in national and secular culture does have power. So why are harmful practices tolerated? Things are explained away with basic biblical principles and normalization. Evangelizing, spreading the good word, giving testimonies, sharing your faith in Christ or however it may be described is a major tenant of the Bible. Jesus’ disciples were sent to go spread his message and travel to spread his salvation to the masses. Baptism of the dead and Messianic Jewish missionaries both fall under this value, they are practices which are made to spread the faith which leads to them being lumped in with mission agencies travelling the world and preachers on the sidewalk in cities. The patriarchy and traditional family structures are supported in the Bible. Evangelical Christians make up such a large proportion of the nation and have been deeply involved in the government ever since the civil rights movement (guess why). Their child training and practices of corporal punishment are beyond normalized—they are law. Hitting your child with “paddles, fists and palm, [and] with spoons and switches” (Lavin pt. I), is legal in all fifty states and in 19 of those this type of discipline is permissible in public schools (Lavin pt. II). Not only popular culture but the Supreme Court of the United States supports parents’ rights to strike their children and babies as discipline. We must find a balance between respecting and supporting Americans’ faith while also minimizing physically, emotionally, and spiritually harmful practices.

Works Cited

Cook, Roger D., et al. “Theological Underpinnings of Baptism for the Dead.” BYU Studies Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 3, 2016, pp. 101-116. Brigham Young University, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43957293?seq=2.

Harrison, Laura, and Sarah B. Rowley. “Babies by the Bundle: Gender, Backlash, and the   Quiverfull Movement.” Feminist Formations, vol. 23, no. 1, 2011, pp. 47–69, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41301638?pq-origsite=summon&seq=6. 

“How can I meet my husband’s basic needs?” Institute in Basic Life Principles, 2014, https://iblp.org/questions/how-can-i-meet-my-husbands-basic-needs. 

Jordan, McKay. “Diving Into The Mormon Temple Rituals: The Sealing or Temple Wedding.”     Embracing Apostasy with Jordan & McKay, ep. 72, 31 January 2022. Apple Podcast app,

Holy Bible. McGee, J. Vernon, King James Version, Reference ed., Thru the Bible Radio, 1976.

Kinzer, Mark S. “Twenty-First Century Messianic Judaism: Evangelical and Post-Evangelical Trajectories.” Hebrew Studies, vol. 57, 2016. National Association of Professors of Hebrew, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/641364.

Lavin, Talia. “Ministry of Violence, Parts I-III: Corporal Punishment, Evangelicals, and the Doctrine of Obedience.” The Sword and the Sandwich, 8 November 2021, https://theswordandthesandwich.substack.com/p/ministry-of-violence-parts-iiii?s=. “The 2020 Census of American Religion.” Religion & Culture, July 2021. PRRI, https://www.prri.org/research/2020-census-of-american-religion/.

created for LANG 120 with Ayelet Even-Nur