Modern evangelicals are often closet fundamentalists.
They may wear hip clothing, and they may try to sound “cool”, but they often look far more like fundamentalists than they do like Jesus.
This week on the Bare Marriage podcast (dropping tomorrow), Keith and I are responding to 10 clips from various evangelical leaders, and showing what to look for when they say things that sound “reasonable”, or at least that sound familiar. And we show how all of it is bunk.
In one of them, Josh Howerton is railing about how liberal women support Islam but not Christianity, even though Islam treats women so badly.
Let’s take a look at the arguments he makes here:
- In Islam, women are required to wear burkas
- In Islam, all women submit to all men
- In Christianity, it’s only wives submit to your husbands
Now, I have a HUGE problem with fundamentalist Islam and the human rights abuses of women. Huge.
But here’s my problem:
The difference between Josh Howerton and fundamentalist Islam is a difference of degree, not of kind.
That’s a crucial distinction. Even in the submission argument he’s saying that:
We don’t make women submit to all men! We just make them subordinate to their husbands!
He’s not arguing, “whom the Son has set free is free indeed”, or “there is now no male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus,” nor “there is no mediator between God and humans except Jesus.”
No, he is arguing that women are only subordinate to one man, instead of to all men.
This isn’t a difference of kind. This is just a “we’re not as bad as them, but we’re still on the same spectrum.”
It’s the same argument with the burka. He’s upset that women wear burkas, but one of the big criticisms of burkas is how it makes women into sex objects. The argument goes like this:
Women’s bodies can inflame men’s lust, and women’s bodies are private and are only to be seen by the men related to them. Thus, women must completely cover up.
If a woman doesn’t cover up, then she is saying that she doesn’t care about modesty, and so what should she expect but for a man to use her?
(I realize that there are feminist Muslims who would defend the burka in another way, but to be honest, I can’t see it as anything other than a symbol of oppression).
Now, how is that argument any different from what Josh Howerton said here:
- He’s saying that the child in the mini-skirt is his “enemy” because of what she is wearing.
- He’s imputing the motivation of trying to seduce the adult male onto her merely because of her dress
- He’s making it sound natural that an adult male would want to rape a child merely because of what she was wearing
Again, this is a difference in degree, not in kind.
Fundamentalists of all religious stripes share key traits
1. A literalist version of the interpretation of sacred texts
In fundamentalism, there is only ever one way to interpret things. Other interpretations aren’t just “other interpretations”; they’re “this person is rejecting the word of God!”
When Josh Howerton preaches, he frequently says, “if you disagree with me, you’re disagreeing with God, because I’m preaching straight from the Bible.”
2. An “us vs. them” mentality, and seeing others as the enemy
In fundamentalism, other people are seen as enemies of God and enemies of ourselves. Think about how modern evangelicalism teaches us to see other people as enemies at worst, or projects at best. Other people don’t exist as whole people, made in the image of God, with something to offer us; they are lost, damned, and the only way for them to be saved is to believe identically to us.
3. Wanting to return to a “purer” form of the religion or the culture
Fundamentalism is often focused on a return to the past. The world right now is terrible; everything is awful. But BEFORE, at a different time, things were better. And the only way to get God’s favour is to return to when things were better, and make them great again today.
4. Emphasis on power and authority, especially of men
Fundamentalists are all about power–who has it, and making sure they keep having it.
They put certain people in charge–people just like them–and they make sure that other people stay below. The main sins in fundamentalism are criticizing this power structure, and arguing that other people deserve justice or that other people are worthy of care.
Instead, they use coercive and shaming tactics to keep people lower on the hierarchy, and much of the effort goes into maintining that hierarchy.
5. Control of women
Fundamentalists of all stripes focus on the control of women, and especially control of women’s sexuality.
Women exist to serve men, and thus their sexuality is to benefit men, not to benefit women. Women are seen as both rewards for men, and as massive temptations to men. So they are the cause of man’s downfall, and the ones that are used to keep men propped up.
6. Emphasis on the sexual entitlement of leaders
Men’s insatiable need for sex is often a big part of fundamentalism (and of cults). Think of how many fundamentalists promise men sexual rewards of some type, whether on heaven or on earth.
Last night I shared this Fixed It For You on my social media channels:
In this view, women were created by God to serve men’s sexual needs. This is a common teaching throughout fundamentalism of all religions.
There are other similarities of fundamentalism of course.
This is only a partial list.
But I hope you can see that this list applies to people like Josh Howerton just as much as it does to fundamentalist Islam or fundamentalist Judaism or fundamentalist Hindusim.
The issue is not the religion; it is the focus on fundamentalism, which is at heart about controlling others using religion in order to privilege some at the expense of others.
I simply fail to see how there’s much difference between Howerton and Islam.
And none of this has anything to do with Jesus.
Jesus said that it is only pagans that run after power and authority, and we aren’t to exercise authority over one another. Jesus said that every believer can access God; we don’t need leaders telling us what to do. Jesus considered women made in the image of God, and valued women for our contributions and our brains. He criticized those who objectified women. Jesus empowered women and empowered those lower down the social strata; He worked to turn power on its head.
Jesus wasn’t trying to “return” to a better version of Judaism; He was bringing the kingdom of God, which would continue to grow as people believed more and more about His radical ideas of this “upside down kingdom”, as N.T. Wright says.
She Deserves Better!
Because we all deserve a big faith.
Your daughter deserves better than what you likely grew up with in church.
What would it look like to prepare the next generation without toxic teachings about modesty, sex, or consent, and instead set her up for a big faith?
There is a version of Christianity that looks nothing like Howerton’s.
There is a version of Christianity that is not about solidifying the power of the ones at the top, but is instead focused on freedom and justice and wholeness.
Christianity is not the problem; fundamentalism is. And unfortunately, fundamentalism often uses the same Scriptures as Christianity, and says some of the same catchphrases. But they are two entirely different beasts.
If you’re in a church that resembles fundamentalism more than Jesus, please find a new church. You don’t have to stay in a place that isn’t ushering in the kingdom of God.
I hope that more people find freedom, because all of us deserve better than to have Jesus used as a tool of oppression and fundamentalism, rather than as our Saviour who brings freedom and peace.
What do you think? Does modern evangelicalism have a fundamentalist problem? What are other markers of fundamentalism that I’ve missed? Let’s talk in the comments!
It is absolutely a load of hooey that they insist they believe women ONLY submit to their husbands. If church leaders can only be men, we also have to submit to those men. If you have to obey your father, you submit to that man. Maybe they’d argue that if someone else’s husband tells you to do something you can say “no thanks”, but if men were “designed to lead”, they expect us to defer to them, even if it doesn’t always look like “do what any man says at any time”. It’s just soft-core vs hard-core.
Exactly. Totally agree!
It’s called “The Great Chain of Being”.
Boots stamping on faces all the way down, all the way from the Throne of God at the top..
The picture of the man in the introduction would have given my kids nightmares when they were younger.
I think many fundamentalist men believe women are lesser because they don’t want to think that a woman could be more intelligent or logical than they are. Putting women in their “place” makes the men feel more important and hides their insecurity.
So much of evangelicalism honestly is built to deal with men’s insecurity!
If women are “lesser,” then men are automatically in the top half of people just by the existence of what’s what’s between their legs.
Notice that people like Antonin Scalia don’t make that argument; it’s always men who are not actually all that impressive.
“The picture of the main in the introduction” is holding up the wrong finger for the facial expression.
>> In Islam, women are required to wear burkas
That’s not much different from some churches that say women can’t wear pants/jeans to church.
Yep. Again, difference in degree, not kind. The burka is way worse–but many evangelical churches do similar (if not to the same extreme) things.
My experience with southern baptist included them often citing how much “freedom” there was to be found in Christ compared to fundamentalism, and scoffing at the “high control” other denominations, religions, or governments employ. Of course it was men teaching about this “freedom” which they had while the women did not.
I really believe some church peoples cannot function without a hierarchy of some kind in every aspect of their lives. They seem so lost that they need to have a formal ordering put in place so they can argue how they are better as opposed to simply being better and letting their good works display their faith.
As for “liberal” christian women supporting Islam more than Christianity, I’d say some are more likely supporting the *women* in those cultures/religions because they understand what it is to be under oppressive “leaders.”
Yeah that is what I noticed. They are also standing up to the racism a lot of muslims face in the West since many of them are not white (or not the “correct” kind of white) and are often discriminated against
Yes, I have no idea what he means by “liberal women support Islam.” Again, he didn’t cite a source.
Just another set of Buzzwords & Snarl Words.
Stimulus/Response trigger,just like Pavlov’s dogs.
Also dangerous to the fundamentalist way are its women. In the original Howerton/Isalm clip, who supported what Josh was saying with her own words? All women know that our sisterhood is divided into a few camps, just like men. For example, we have the good women (men), and we have the not-so-good women (men). Behind these fundamentalist men who are powerhouses in mega-churches and on social media are our sisters, perpetuating these harmful, abusive messages. Are they brainwashed, or do they want a seat at the King’s Table? It just boggles my mind when I have ever heard a woman in a Bible study say to me, “But you have to submit to him…” I don’t do female group Bible studies anymore because of the hypocrisy and the perpetuation of false messages that may be working for them, but I do not believe they work for most. The fact that our fellow sisters do not look upon those of us abused by our spouses or our churches as relevant says so much more to me about them than they realize. Rules for thee and not for me.
Yes, that was my thought. He at least acknowledged that discussing childless women was ‘sensitive’ (although the second half of that statement should have been ‘but rudeness is rudeness’ not ‘but truth is truth’). She is just straightforward arrogant, obnoxious, patronising and hurtful to any woman who doesn’t fulfil the Howerton-ordained life of ‘holiness’ – “what is holy – focussing on your husband, your family, your kids”. So where does that leave the single and the childless women?!!!
It really is such a small (and offensive!) view of a woman’s life.
“Other people don’t exist as whole people, made in the image of God, with something to offer us; they are lost, damned, and the only way for them to be saved is to believe identically to us.” – This is such a good point- I remember back when I was “on fire for God” and trying to do evangelism all the time, I would talk to people about their beliefs, and listen only to figure out what I could say to persuade them. The idea that maybe I could be wrong about some things, and maybe I could learn from other people- that’s just nowhere to be found in this kind of ideology. It views people in really simplistic, one-dimensional terms, and all that matters is we’re right and they’re wrong.
It actually has been one of the most freeing things as I have left behind a lot of fundamentalist evangelicalism–to be able to appreciate people again as whole people, and not as projects!
Yes~
Misogyny is a “principality” no matter where, what culture or religion. Demonstrated throughout history in so many ways, reducing a woman’s significance to her anatomy; a pair of breastst, her vagina and uterus. Anything but her humanity. Josh Howerton’s comment suggesting little girls in miniskirts are enticing is pedophilia. And he is influenced by the same demonic principality that allows child marriage, “honour” murder of girls and women, female genital mutilation. PERIOD!! Full stop. And anyone and any religion who thinks thusly. (As referred to in this article.)
Exactly! It’s all the same. The misogyny is the common thread.
I recommend reads by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. A former Muslim fom Somalia now a US citizen and married living in NYI’ve read her books”Nomad, Infidel and Hereitic”. If not a reader, there are podcasts by her on YouTube. She says the only hope for this world are the teachings of Jesus. She proclaimed this to the Vatican in person. Even while in her agnostic phase. I read fairly recently that she has now responded to Jesus. I wish I could introduce her to ” Bare Marriage” somehow. I hope and pray she doesn’t get turned off by encountering the same spirit of in Fundamentalism in Christianity as in Islam.
I find her story fascinating!
Incidentally, there’s a Canadian podcastor on YouTube, called “Friendly ex Muslim.”
I recommend a perusal of his podcasts.
Fundamentalism is an attitude/state of mind that can attach itself to ANY belief system (including Atheism and Politics)
And when a Fundy converts from one belief system to another, they just swap their definitions of Good and Evil to that of the new belief system but otherwise act just the same. Like Fundagelicals converting to a new One True Church (Catholic and especially EO churches in the USA are encountering this phenomenon; I call it “Fundies with Rosaries”).
There is a 2015 NY Times article about Norway having to teach migrant Muslim men how to treat women. As one migrant commented, s**xual assaults against scantily dressed women (e.g., those not wearing a burqa) are not prosecuted in his home country bc men just go “crazy” looking at a woman (and can just “take” what they want). It’s exactly what the NC pastor Bobby Leonard said in 2024 about acquitting a man who s**ually assaults a female wearing short shorts bc she deserved it. When a Muslim’s and Christian’s valuation of women are indistinguishable, the American church is in bigger trouble than what many recognize.
Thank you for all of the work you do.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/world/europe/norway-offers-migrants-a-lesson-in-how-to-treat-women.html