In January of 1994 I went to see Schindler’s list in movie theatres.
About two hours after watching it I had a miscarriage, losing my first pregnancy. I’ve always thought somehow the horror of that movie and the miscarriage were linked.
One of the scenes that has haunted with the banality of evil was when a woman was protesting an injustice, and a Nazi guard shot her point black in the head. I couldn’t comprehend it.
This weekend I watched videos of the same thing happening in Minneapolis.
I still can’t comprehend it.
I wrote about this on social media on Saturday, and the posts went viral. While I don’t normally address things like this on the blog, I’ve realized that at this point, if I don’t say something, I’ll regret it. And I do have some big things to say.
I know that not everybody will see Minneapolis the same way that I do. But can I ask you to trust me for a minute and hear me out? Maybe your reaction to Alex Pretti’s death wasn’t the same as mine, but you do agree with us about marriage and sex. You do see that the teachings in complementarian spaces have hurt women, and they’re toxic.
What I’d like to show you today is simply this:
The same logic that undergirds complementarianism undergirds authoritarianism, and undergirds what is happening in Minneapolis.
I’d like to walk through nine arguments that are being made about the government’s actions in Minneapolis, nine arguments that mimic the authoritarian playbook, and show you how these are also the same arguments complementarians use to talk about marriage and sex. There is no daylight between them.
And I hope that, by seeing the similarities between the problems wtih complementarianism and the problems with authoritarianism as they are being played out right now, we may be able to have a clearer view of current events. Some of the similarities are easier to spot, and some are a bit more challenging. But even if you have your back up by me even raising the subject, if you’ve appreciated what I’ve said about marriage, please read on and see the common threads.
1. “They got hurt because they were asking for it. They provoked it.”
We hear this about those who have been hurt by federal agents. I hope you can easily, and immediately, see how this mimics how complementarians tend to talk about sex and sexual assault.
It’s like DARVO–reversing victim and offender.
- “I wouldn’t have hurt her if she hadn’t made me.”
- “He wouldn’t have shot and killed her if she hadn’t been on that street.”
- “Alex Pretti wouldn’t have been shot if he hadn’t been out protesting.” (Note: He wasn’t protesting. He was out living his normal life when ICE showed up).
Can you all hear the complementarian arguments about sexual assault?
- It’s Shannon Ethridge in Every Young Woman’s Battle saying that the way girls dress teaches boys how to treat them.
- It’s that Missouri pastor saying that if he were on the jury, he’d let the guy off, because what did she think he was going to do if she was wearing those shorts?
- It’s Dannah Gresh telling 8-year-olds that their bellies are “intoxicating” and have the ability to make grown men “out of control.”
It’s all your fault if you’re hurt because you provoked it, you see.
2. “If people would just submit to authorities, everything would be fine.”
- “If she had just submitted to the officer, she wouldn’t have been shot.”
- “He shouldn’t have gotten in the way of an officer doing his job.”
- “He should have just complied.”
You see this too, don’t you? You see how this is exactly the same advice given by Martha Peace in The Excellent Wife, or by Doug Wilson, or by John MacArthur to abused wives? Remember when MacArthur’s church sent Eileen Gray back to her husband who was physically and sexually abusing their children, and she was told to just submit so that he wouldn’t have reason to hurt her?
If someone hurts or abuses you, it isn’t because you didn’t mollify them enough. It isn’t your fault. An abusive person wants to abuse, and they will find a way to do it. You can’t submit your way out of abuse, because it is about them wanting to have power. We know this when it comes to marriage; we should know this when it comes to people being murdered in the streets as well.
3. “We have to wait to see what the evidence says”
One of the other frequent takes I saw on social media this weekend was, “we have to wait and see what the evidence says.”
But here’s the problem: Within two hours of the shooting of Alex Pretti we already had multiple angles of the shooting. Within four hours, we had the video of “pink coat lady”, who got the clearest and best angle (here’s BBC’s analysis). Within hours of the shooting of Renee Good we had multiple angles. The evidence was irrefutable, and it was right there, and it hasn’t changed.
Those saying “we have to wait and see” don’t mean that more evidence needs to come out. What they’re looking for, in essence, is for the government to explain how this was justified. It’s outsourcing your critical thinking to superiors, instead of looking at the evidence with your own two eyes.
Most who were arguing this about Alex Pretti were simultaneously spreading debunked claims made by the government about Renee Good. We had independent news agencies showing that Renee Good was never pointing her car at Jonathan Ross, and was only ever turning away, but because the government says she was a danger to Ross, they believe she was. This is not about truth, but rather wanting to believe what those in authority say. When multiple frame-by-frame analyses have been done, and are readily available, showing that Jonathan Ross was never in danger, these people still quote the government’s line, and they continue to quote the government’s line about Alex Pretti too.
One of the hallmarks of complementarianism is that you aren’t allowed to think for yourself. You must only believe what your superiors tell you.
- Josh Howerton said that if you disagree with him, you’re disagreeing with God.
- Complementarians often talk about “umbrellas of authority”, where you must put yourself under the authority of a spiritual leader or a male relative, and you must follow them.
- Desiring God has posted articles about how husbands “get their wives ready for Jesus” by sanctifying them, putting the husband in the role of God in a wife’s life.
- Churches with membership covenants say that if you disagree with or challenge church leadership, you can be put under church discipline
Complementarianism works hard to make sure that women especially outsource their critical thinking to their authorities, and that’s what was being done in Minneapolis this weekend too. Ignore the evidence of your own eyes, and don’t make any pronouncements until your authorities tell you what to believe.
4. “They were bad people, so they deserved what happened to them.”
This is a common tool of authoritarian movements–if we can dehumanize someone, or a group of people, then no one will complain about how they were treated.
We heard this about Renee Good, saying she had a criminal record (she did not) or that she was abusive towards her children (there is no evidence of this). They played up the fact that she was in a same sex relationship. We heard it about George Floyd, how he was a drug addict and career criminal, as if that justifies the fact that an officer sat on his neck for nine minutes, killing him while he was helpless. We saw it even about little Liam Ramos, the five-year-old in the bunny hat who was apprehended by ICE. The government said things about his father and mother that were not true–but even if they were, it didn’t justify taking a 5-year-old across the country to put him in a detention facility, when he could have been placed in foster care in Minneapolis where he could have continued to go to school (and see his family).
It doesn’t actually matter whether the person the government has harmed was bad or good; we have the Rule of Law which must be obeyed, regardless. As Rebecca and I discussed on our podcast about authoritarianism, one of the big findings of people who score high on the authoritarianism scale (as evangelicals predominantly do) is that they are far less likely to say the law must be equally applied, and far more likely to say that it can be selectively applied, based on what people I do or don’t like.
Now, let’s think about this in the evangelical framework with regards to marriage and sex. Watch this video of Josh Howerton calling “shady little girls in miniskirts” more dangerous than the literal devil:
He’s painting the little girl as the enemy here.
Think of how many times complementarians have painted women as the enemy, who deserve to be banished.
- Matt Chandler put Karen Hinkley under discipline for divorcing her husband who watched CSAM;
- John MacArthur excommunicated Eileen Gray for leaving her abusive ex-husband
- John Piper’s church excommunicated Natalie Hoffman for divorcing her abusive husband.
- Andy Savage’s church gave him a standing ovation when he admitted to sexualy abusing Jules Woodson when she was a teenager and he was her youth pastor
The woman challenging unjust authority is punished and ostracized and called the “other”, so that people don’t have sympathy or don’t stand up for them when the church treats them badly.
5. “So You Believe in Open Borders Then?”
One of the oddest responses I had this weekend when I wrote about how people shouldn’t be murdered in the streets for no reason was the reply, “So you believe in open borders then?”
This is actually the Motte and Bailey fallacy if you want to look it up–Keith has talked about it on the podcast before. People use it to distract from the argument at hand. I was bringing up Alex Pretti’s murder, and they retreat to a more defensible position that no one was actually arguing–open borders.
One can disagree with illegal immigration and also think people shouldn’t get shot in the streets for no reason (One can also have very nuanced views on illegal immigration and think that people shouldn’t get shot in the street for no reason).
But the idea being presented is that because these agents work for the government, and because one agrees with their stated goals, then everything they do to meet those goals is automatically okay. Or at least really not that bad.
Honestly, that’s pretty much the definition of authoritarianism!
Complementarians use the “aim justifies the means” too, and a great example is how Emerson Eggerichs talks about good-willed men. He’s forever saying that good-willed men want to love their wives and want good marriages. Because these men are so good-willed, they deserve to have authority. But when you point out how the men are misusing that authority, Eggerichs just explains it away. Similarly, I’ve heard complementarians argue that obviously some men will misuse their authority and hurt their wives, but if this happens, it’s because God wants to refine the wife through suffering, so you can’t complain about it.
In all cases, the bad exercise of authority is explained away.
6. “My rage is justified!”
Authoritarians thrive off rage. They like to feel powerful, and they want to intimidate. That’s why so many pastors yell. It’s why rage is such a huge element of abusive relationships. When a spouse yells, the other goes into fight, flight, freeze or fawn mode. It triggers a trauma reaction.
What’s interesting in both of the Minnesota shootings, though, is that the victims weren’t emotionally dsyregulated themselves, nor were they reacting with a trauma response to their treatment. Renee Good was calm, telling Jonathan Ross, “I’m not made at you, have a good day.” Alex Pretti was calmly filming, until the agents assaulted and pepper sprayed two women, and he jumped in to protect them. Both Renee and Alex showed they were not afraid of the agents’ rage.
And that’s what often sets off authoritarians–when a person doesn’t find their rage scary, they lose power. They lose status. And thus they get even angrier. Jonathan Ross shot Renee Good, and called her an “f***n b***h.”
Think about how many complementarian pastors are famous for yelling during their sermons, or have been disciplined for spiritual abuse and raging. Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald are two perfect cases, but there are so many more. Authoritarians, and complementarians, often try to control through rage, and want their audience to cower. When the audience doesn’t, it’s a threat.
Download Our Marriage Survey
Join 40,00 others and let's change the evangelical conversation about sex
7. “You didn’t speak up when [insert person here] was killed!”
This is a strange one I’ve heard several times over the last few days. Critics are essentially saying that because we didn’t speak up about someone else being killed (someone who was killed by an illegal alien; a law enforcement officer being killed; a famous Christian celebrity being killed) that we’re not allowed to hold the government to account for executing people in the streets.
This is what’s known as a red herring–it distracts the conversation rather than addressing the argument. It’s a false equivalence.
Here’s the difference between the killings they bring up and the killings in Minneapolis: no matter how tragic [insert person here]’s death was, it was usually done by a single individual. Renee Good and Alex Pretti were murdered by federal law enforcement officers, which means they were murdered in THE NAME OF ALL CITIZENS OF THE USA. Violence by the state is in a separate category. When violence is done by the state, then it is condoned by the state, and it becomes everyone’s responsibility. That’s why the Rule of Law means that the state is held to a high standard.
I also had people say to me, in reaction to me being dismayed by Alex Pretti’s death, “so you’re okay with abortion up to 40 weeks”? Those two things have nothing to do with one another, and I honestly don’t even know what they’re talking about.
When it comes to marriage advice, we also see false equivalence by complementarians.
- When we talk about how many women are raped in marriage, I’ll hear, “but what about all the men who are sex starved!”
- When we talk about sexual harrassment, we’ll hear, “but what about all those false claims of rape?”
- When we talk about abuse, we’ll hear, “but what about all those men whose wives leave them for no reason?”
If the first instinct, when one hears of power being wielded inappropriately, is to prove that those in power are actually the ones being wronged, then we have moved into authoritarian arguments.
8. “We need to be violent so we can protect the vulnerable!”
The justificiation for a lot of violence and inhumanity is that it’s necessary to protect people—that life is so cruel and dangerous “out there” that we need to take drastic steps, and give those in power extra authority, so that the vulnerable can be protected. After all, who will protect the women if the big guys with guns don’t show up?
But what we’ve been shown over and over is that the big guys with the guns are the main threats to the women and children. Renee Good was murdered by a big guy with a gun. Alex Pretti was murdered trying to protect two women from big guys with guns who were assaulting them and pepper spraying them point blank.
When it comes to sexual assault, a woman or girl is far more likely to be victimized by someone she knows, or someone in her own family or church, then she is by a stranger. Getting rid of the “strangers” that we believe are assaulting women and children does little to address the root cause of most abuse.
Complementarians, too, claim that their doctrine protects women. We have to give men authority, you see, so that they can use that power to protect women. And yet we also see the biggest threat to women is these very men, and that women are safest among men who don’t believe in that kind of power. As for protection, women are more likely to stand up for justice for sexual abuse victims than men are. In complementarian spaces, women are not being protected. In fact, the SBC considered women preaching a greater threat to the gospel than men who sexually abuse children.
If you need power so that you can protect us from people like you, then perhaps people like you are the problem. You’ve created the very problem that you now claim you need to solve.
9. “It’s not fair to compare us to Nazis!”
When we think of Nazism, we tend to think of 1945 Nazism, when the world discovered the death camps.
But Nazism didn’t start out that way. It started out by limiting people’s rights and suspending habeas corpus; by dividing the population into “good” and “bad” and “us” vs “them”; by blaming problems on a certain group of people to justify more authoritarian means of control; by setting up huge concentration camps (not death camps yet) where people were held without trial and denied access to counsel; by revoking citizenship or depriving people of legal status.
I would hope we can all agree that we don’t actually want to get to 1945 again. But if we look at current conditions and see that we’re in 1934, or 1936, or 1938 (and I would argue that we’re closer to 1938 than 1934), then the answer isn’t to say, “well, we’re not full blown Nazi yet so don’t use that comparison.” It’s to say, “this is a five alarm fire because we don’t want to get to 1945 and we need to stop it before that happens!”
We see this tendency in complementarians too. Remember the clip Keith and I talked about on a podcast in December, where Josh Howerton complained that liberal women aren’t mad at fundamentalist Islam, when fundamentalist Islam was so much worse than Christianity? He said that Islam wants you to submit to all men, whereas Christianity only wants women to submit to their husbands. It’s the same logic: Because we’re not as bad, you can’t criticize us!
Realizing that society is on a bad trajectory, and knowing where that trajectory ends, is part of being a smart and responsible student of both history and religion. Complementarianism naturally ends in something resembling The Handmaid’s Tale or Islamic fundamentalism. To say so does not mean that we are claiming we are currently in The Handmaid’s Tale; it simply means we know where this is heading. Similarly, comparing the government to Nazism is not saying we are currently there; it’s saying, we know where this is heading, and we should get off the train now.
I hope you see the similarities between authoritarianism and complementarianism.
Let’s recap:
Authoritarianism hates people who:
- think for themselves
- stay emotionally regulated
- want authorities to apply justice equally
- believe in the Rule of Law
- don’t divide the world into “us” vs. “them”, but see others as their neighbour
- don’t submit to them
- don’t need their protection
Complementarians hate women who:
- think for themselves
- aren’t intimidated by men but remain emotionally strong and don’t cower
- demand logical and moral consistency from their husbands
- want to be treated equally, rather than being seen as less than
- don’t automatically submit to them
- protect other women
I hope you can see how similar both complementarianism and authoritarianism are! And if you believe, as this blog has shown repeatedly, that complemetarianism is harmful, then I hope you can see how the authoritarianism we’re currently witnessing in Minneapolis is also harmful.
There’s something that undergirds both: the aim is to make sure the right people have authority over everyone else, and that this authority is maintained. The aim is not to ensure that people are safe, respected, and treated well so that we can create a community that can thrive; the aim is to preserve power for the right kind of people. That’s why they never admit mistakes until they are absolutely forced to. To admit a mistake may mean that you shouldn’t be in authority, and that can never be up for debate. So they double down, even when obviously wrong, because the aim is not truth but the preservation of authority.
This has been evident in the church for a long time, and tragically we are also now seeing it in what is happening in Minneapolis.
If you’re unsure about all of this…
May I suggest something? Read a wide variety of news sources. Often the reason we got caught up in authoritarianism, whether in churches or in politics, is that we stay in a bubble.
So first, listen to this podcast that Rebecca and I did in August on authoritarianism, and take the two quizzes. It’s fascinating!
Second, choose a variety of news sources to read. If you currently listen to FoxNews, or another on the more right end of the political spectrum, pair this with a few of these:
- The BBC International News (UK)
- CBC News (Canada)
- Der Spiegel International (Germany, but in English)
- Hindustan Times (India)
It’s important to see how other countries are seeing the news, to get a broader perspective.
There are some moments that are pivotal in history
Moments where society faces a crossroads, and where which route you take matters tremendously.
I believe that this weekend especially showed that we are at such a pivotal moment, and my prayer is that the wider church, and those in the USA who can do something about it, recognize it now, and choose the way of Jesus.
What do you think? Do you see similarities between what is happening in Minneapolis and complementarianism? What would be your #10 that I didn’t mention? Let’s talk in the comments!
Dannah Gresh telling 8-year-old girls that their bellies can be intoxicating (under #1) made me think of the 5-year-old-boy who was taken by ICE. That connection hit hard.
I still cry for Liam Ramos, and I hope that Congresspeople show up at the detention facility and don’t leave until he’s released. That’s what it’s going to take.
When Liam Ramos was taken was the moment I realised that the majority of Americans who support ICE’s behaviour are going to excuse it until it’s actually too late to do anything. If your first though when seeing a terrified 5 year old is how you can justify the actions of those who are terrifying him, you are beyond reason.
Thank you for speaking out. I know some people will argue that you ‘shouldn’t get involved in politics’, but just as with 1930s Germany, this goes way beyond politics. We are commanded to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God, and we can’t do these things while closing our eyes to evil.
Exactly, Angharad. I’m feeling so grateful for Canada right now.
I definitely think you are correct to bring this up, Sheila. I’m in the US, but thankfully live in a small enough town that no one has seen anything even related to ICE. I was trying to just wait for this whole thing to blow over when the leaders change, but the escalation over the past few months has me pondering for the first time where me and my retired mother can go if we need too. Like “what other country can we run to” levels of planning. I’m not chancing what sound like mercenaries around single me or my widow mom. It’s scary, and we are not even near that states that this is happening!
I’m so sorry! It’s just been so awful to have the rug pulled out from under you. I know so many in Canada have go bags packed in case we’re invaded.
I think Venezuela has shown us that no country is safe. Last year, I was trying to convince my American friends who have joint citizenship to relocate here, but now, I wouldn’t bother. Greenland, Cuba, Canada…it just depends which country comes onto their radar next. If you want to be safe, move to a country with poor natural resources.
The worst part is if you have a disability often times you are barred from getting citizenship in other countries, even in places like Australia I can’t get citizenship because of my autism and bipolar so I guess I am kinda stuck here because most countries see disabled immigrants as a liability and a leech on their resources that don’t offer anything meaningful to the country (like tax money).
That’s why you can’t just say “just immigrate legally” without discussing and addressing the unfair and discriminatory barriers to gaining citizenship that make it easier said than done.
Your comment about Venezuela shows that you are not well versed in history. Venezuelans are thrilled that the illegal dictator was captured. Read about the torture, the rapes, etc. Please study history before commenting.
Thank you, Sheila! This is a timely, accurate analysis. I truly appreciate your ability to speak truth in love.
At some point, the church will be forced to confront the rotten fruit produced by so many of its branches, and decide whether to cut off the infected parts, or risk death to the whole tree.
I don’t see Minneapolis the same way you do, but the way I see Minneapolis also helps your argument about how utterly destructive complementarianism is.
I do not object at all to ICE taking people who are here illegally into custody. I do not object to them using force to do it, because every law we have is ultimately backed up with force. I do not object to people protesting in the general vicinity of ICE.
What I object to is them protesting in a way that interferes with operations: legally, that’s obstruction of justice, and pragmatically, it creates a high-tension, dangerous situation.
(There is always some tension with protests: when is it about getting attention for your cause and when does it tip over into interfering with other people’s rights?)
Here, I think the protesters went way too far, for a variety of reasons. (In fact, I think some of their tactics used by some protesters echo abuse tactics as well.)
BUT –
This is why the language of complementarians is crazy.
My brothers in Christ, you should not be running your households in a way that has any sort of relationship to a federal raid. If you have, that is such an epic failure that you need to be barred from any and all decision-making for the rest of your life.
If you are so scared and destabilised by dissent on ordinary topics that it feels like you’re an armed federal agent taking rapists into custody while a crowd of people are blowing whistles, screaming at you, and aiming their cars at you, GET HELP. If “honey, please don’t leave your wet towels on the bed” causes the same reaction as gunshots, understand that isn’t normal.
Hi Jane. Your comment here is quite interesting. As a matter of fact I am still pondering it all. It made me think of this for some reason: It is a fact that the vast majority of police forces in the USA have a written policy to terminate a high pursuit police chase if the danger to the public outweighs the immediate need to apprehend. It seems the talking point is about Risk-Benefit?
I don’t believe in heckler’s vetos, so no.
Interesting. Was just looking for conversation. Best to you.
Yes yes yes. A thousand times affirming what you are saying here.
I happened to start to learn about darvo and patterns of abusive behavior in 2019 and I’m so glad i did because it later helps me interpret international events, too. Like events in Russia’s war on Ukraine. And when zelensky was piled on in the oval office, the comment that the vice pres reminded people of their abusive boyfriend.
WE NEED TO KNOW THESE PATTERNS AND UNDERSTAND WHAT’S GOING ON IN LIGHT OF IT!
And just because all people were endowed by their creator with their rights, prior to the introduction of citizenship, we kind of need to tread a little lightly considering the historical treatment of the original inhabitants of the continent.
And i can simultaneously believe in enforcement of existing law AND believe the government is behaving inappropriately.
That is supposed to be a response to the original article
I would always obey my local law enforcement, but I do that knowing that even if they arrest me, I don’t have to fear for my physical safety and my rights will be respected. Given that ICE is snatching people who are here legally and following all the rules, and subjecting them to torture and inhumane conditions including sexual assault and death, I think we can’t just say “they’re law enforcement, so obey them.” Personally I feel it’s the obligation of all Christians to obstruct and impede ICE in any way we can.
Being in the country without documentation is not a crime in America (it’s a misdemeanor, like a parking ticket). There are thousands of undocumented immigrants in my city, and nearly all of them are working, paying taxes, going to church, raising families, and contributing to the community. If that’s “illegal”, we need to fix the laws, not brutalize and terrorize people who are just trying to build a good life.
Exactly pretty much all of them want to be here legally it is just the process of doing so has a lot of barriers including having to leave the US and uproot your current life while going through the process which many of these people don’t have a safe place to live outside the US to do that.
Why not make the immigration process more accessible? People forget we did that for Cubans where as soon as they wash up on the shore they can go to a government office and apply get citizenship immediately and the government justified it due to their oppressive dictatorship, but they won’t do the same to the people of other countries.
“There are thousands of undocumented immigrants in my city, and nearly all of them are working, paying taxes, going to church, raising families, and contributing to the community. If that’s “illegal”, we need to fix the laws, not brutalize and terrorize people who are just trying to build a good life.”
THIS.
The law is not the arbiter of what is morally right.
Yes, this!
Jane Eyre, do you object to public executions of unarmed citizens without trial? Just wondering. Or, is it the citizens’ fault for “creating tension”?
Acceptance of egregious state violence completely deflates your arguments against complementarians.
Yes! I agree that the US reminds me of 1930’s Germany. I read CBC and BBC…I will check out the other two news sites you listed.
I usually love how careful and thoughtful your writing is. This article felt a bit more emotionally charged than usual, and the political framing may distract from the strong, credible critiques you’ve built over time.
I understand that, Em. But when I see innocent people being shot in the street and a country I loved starting to embrace authoritarianism, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I didn’t speak up and tried to make a difference before it was too late.
I hope I can offer a small bright spark here – we absolutely are NOT “embracing” authoritarianism 🙂 As a Minnesota native who now lives elsewhere, I’m so proud of my countrymen there, and I’m proud of my friends of all political leanings who are uniting in righteous anger against the atrocities happening here. We’re not anywhere close to accepting this, dont worry! Thanks for your article Sheila, I loved it!
And thank you for speaking up! It is right and good to speak up for frightened people facing grave injustice, and your comparisons were spot on. We appreciate that.
This comment is regarding numbers 6 (anger), 8 (violence), and 9 (Nazis) from above.
*Just because your anger is justified, does not mean your response is.* (metaphorical you, of course)
Hitler was democratically elected, and it’s not because the German people of the time were more stupid than the rest of us. Communal-we are just as susceptible to group-think and propaganda as they were. Speaking as the American granddaughter of an immigrant who grew up under Nazi-ism and then risked her life to flee Soviet communism (illegally, I might add, at least from the point of view of the Soviets), my PSA today is that desperate people do desperate things. So don’t let your anger or desperation make you resort to force where force is not called for.
Yes, let the official investigation take place. But that *takes time* and we need information that is good *right now* so that we can make good decisions for our communities today and tomorrow and next week. Sheila’s right. Multiple news sources, even reputable conservative ones like the Wall Street Journal, have shown that Alex Pretti was not the one acting with violence. If the Capitol Police had acted the same way toward protesters on January 6 as ICE is acting in Minneapolis, there would have been a lot more bloodshed that day.
Authoritarianism and the naked propaganda that enables it are ugly no matter what side of the political or religious aisle they come from.
That’s all egalitarian women are asking for. To be treated with the same consideration and respect as the men in their congregation. And that’s not happening in complementarian churches.
As someone in the Twin Cities, this not the sort of historic event I expected to live through (Alex worked in the same dept I do at the VA)
One thing I have been noticing that is also similar to evangelical talking points is that of sin leveling and authority leveling. So many people are saying “well the protestors are getting in the way or breaking into ice cars” as if that is the same thing as using lethal force when it isn’t called for it. In both situations people are not realizing the those in power should be held to a more stringent standard, when you keeping your head cool in a stressful situation is the difference between someone living and dying you have to be held to a higher standard. I think this is very similar to abuse victims being told that because they sin sometimes they can’t leave their abuser or when we don’t hold pastors to a higher despite them being in power over their congregants.
Prayers appreciated for my coworkers, while I didn’t know Alex personally, many of my coworkers did and are devastated
We are praying so much for your country, for your state and especially for the family and friends of those who have died.
Oh, Megan, that must be so difficult for you and your colleagues! I’m so very sorry for your loss. If it’s any comfort, just know that the world is seeing what a marvellous man he was.
Wow, I had never thought about these two things being related in this way.
It reminds me of ‘If my people humble themselves and pray…’ A couple of years ago I came to see this as meaning that God was saying that it was the Christians who were doing things and thinking in ways that were connected to or were like, or actually just the same as, the troubles in the land. They were being held guilty/accountable moreso than the sinners or the worldly people because they had not set the standard as they should and/or had violated it. Now the fruit was being borne.
So I think that yes, complimentarianism, although being something which doesn’t get reported in the news, can be considered as having the same components as what is happening in Minneapolis. The defensive arguments that you have spotlighted, I can see as mirroring ways of thinking towards others that the complimentarianism views proport. The teachings of this position, that many Christians have adhered to, defended, supported, and passed on, instead of exposing its fallacies, have played a part in providing fuel for situations as these. What is happening on the streets is a growth and magnification of what was said should be lived out in the home. Members are overpowered and not treated respectfully etc. In sermons I’ve heard ‘As the family goes, so goes society’. Well here you have it – is what I would say. Indeed, “Lord have mercy”.
Thank you, Marlita! It is striking once you see it.
I was just thinking this morning that the 30-40-year-old adults are the ones from the generation of helicopter parenting and Purity Culture. Of course, there are plenty of adults from that generation standing up for what is right, but it makes sense to me that a generation that was raised to defer to authority and were told they were taught critical thinking while having their every move monitored and approved/disapproved is also the generation that defends any action by authority. I am so grateful for the parents I now meet who let their children disagree with them. I haven’t completely thought through all this. It just seems like there might be some connection between growing up in a carefully controlled environment at the same time as being told you are being taught to think critically and an adult population that defends problematic actions from authorities and can’t make judgments until they hear what the authorities have decided.
Hey Jill, couldn’t agree more. Honestly, I’m starting to think it may have been deliberate in some cases, either by purposeful design or by subconscious ideas of “this is how the world should work, so we must raise our children this way”. I know that James Dobson, fervent authoritarian and defender of strict hierarchy over children (to put it very charitably), had his fingers in many political pies.
You’re not the only one to have noticed a connection
https://substack.com/home/post/p-185764580
Thank you for writing about this
Yes, thank you for talking about this and highlighting those similarities.
People may get really mad at you for saying this, but it is true.
All the ugly “-ism’s” out there spring from the same root and produce the same kinds of fruit, don’t they? Sexism, racism, ageism, ableism, classism, colonialism, imperialism, authoritarianism, and on and on. All look for ways to divide humanity into “worthy/unworthy,” “rulers/ruled.” All produce fruit of dehumanization, scapegoating, violence, and lies. All crush those at the bottom and hollow out those at the top. The degree of horror they produce varies widely, but the underlying mechanisms are the same. These systems are destructive, loveless, and antichrist. Once you see it you can’t unsee it.
Yes, very much so. Because the whole idea is based on power, and some people having it, and some people not having it, and it’s the opposite of Jesus.
Hey friends. Love the article. Talking about religious abuse and physical abuse of children in the context of authoritarian religious systems in this comment. Feel free to skip reading it if you don’t want to see that.
Yes, they are deeply familiar and deeply intertwined. The way children are raised in this system, too. I’m afraid I cannot read this article very closely. Brings up too much religious trauma and abuse trauma. But “I wouldn’t have to hurt you if you had just obeyed” and “Disobedience to the authority is the ultimate sin” and “Those who disobey deserve humiliation and pain” are very, very familiar ideas to me, and remind me very much of what I read here in this article. Being forbidden from questioning authority, being required to obey whatever is asked of you the first time, with a smile, with threat of immediate physical harm. It’s so hard on children. It hurts so much to see the same systems I grew up under (and had just recently escaped, too!) now in control of my country.
It absolutely is all intertwined with fundamentalist parenting too. I’m so sorry for the trauma you’ve endured, and I’m especially sorry it was done in God’s name.
Thank you for your support. I’d like you to know that your writings and podcasts played a large role in getting me out of that system and mindset. I cannot thank you enough.
You’re so welcome!
Re: #9. Drawing parallels with Nazi Germany (or the USSR) always seemed hyperbolic to me, until in 2024 I saw students and faculty at America’s most elite universities publicly shouting slogans about sending Jews back to Poland, gas chambers and worse. Harassing and intimidating fellow students for being Jewish to the point they were afraid to leave their rooms or go to class. And no one stopped it or even shamed it. That’s when I thought, yes, it could happen again.
My opinion: Trump/MAGA is only a symptom of a more widespread disease. A love of ideology that applies one standard to “my side,” and a different standard to the “other.” Rights for my freedom of expression but not for yours. An extreme fear and distrust of the other side that justifies violence, even murder. Authoritarianism is just as much a problem for the political left as it is for the right (I feel like most of the authoritarian arguments listed in the article have similarly been directed by the left against people who rejected Covid 19 mandates, or are heavily involved in protesting abortion, for example). The right tends to be much cruder and more jingoistic, but take that away and you’ll see a lot of similarities.
Speaking of media sources that present different viewpoints and information that usually makes me think, I like NPR’s “right, left and center,” and The Free Press.
Thanks for those media suggestions!
I think what people don’t realize about the Nazi comparisons (and what I didn’t realize for years) is that when we say “this is Nazism”, we don’t necessarily mean Germany in 1943. Nazism came in in the early 1930s, and it went along a trajectory leading up to the death camps. And Germans themselves will say that the lessons they want people to remember is not to never have death camps again, because by the time you’re fighting against death camps it’s too late. It’s to never get on the road that leads to death camps.
In the UK, we’ve been talking about the parallels with Naziism for a long time. I wonder if it’s because we lived so much closer to it the last time round? The older generation still remember the refugees who came here. They were often regarded as overreacting to ‘minor’ restrictions, but the sad truth is that by the time it became obvious just how bad things were going to get, it was too late for most people to escape. We know the death camps didn’t come out of nowhere – they started building the foundations years before, with barely-noticeable restrictions and slighting remarks.
In addition to checking a number of news sites, another way to find different views is to do an internet search using a ‘biased’ query, i.e. one where your choice of words make it very obvious what result you are expecting to find. Then search again using a similarly biased query for the opposing view. It’s very interesting what different results are thrown up!
I feel similarly. So many folks want to call their enemies evil and we seem to find that impluse on all sides of the political spectrum at the moment. “For me and friends, but not for thee and thine…”
I fear and lament the current administration, but then I imagine a future with someone like Gavin Newsom at the top (I’m in California, so we’ve had a front row seat to his administration) and I don’t feel comforted. I have no doubt he and his friends would be swift to deal out “justice” and retribution on their enemies once they are in power as Trump and his allies have done and are doing to theirs. None of this is what governments of a free nation should be busy about, but our “left” and “right” seem obssessed by it.
We should be able to call out injustice wherever we find it, whether or not it supports “our people” or “our side.” Thinking for ourselves indeed.
I have always loved the saying of an ancient Greek archon in Athens: “I stood with broad shield before both parties and prevented either from triumphing unjustly.”
Bad and unjust governments always pose the perfect vacuum for another extreme regime to slip right in. Which is why we need to be able to call out injustice wherever we find it–not only among those we dislike or disagree with.
I’m rambling, but I have always thought of Jesus as the most impartial of all judges. It doesn’t means any of us are let off the hook, but he doesn’t lump our sins together either. He looks us in the eye and sees each of us for who we truly are, and with more grace and compassion than we could ever imagine.
Lord help us to bring grace and peace and an unwavering steadfastness to truth and reality into our suffering, broken and delusional world!
Ans thank you for such an insightful and thought-provoking article, Sheila.
“I fear and lament the current administration, but then I imagine a future with someone like Gavin Newsom at the top (I’m in California, so we’ve had a front row seat to his administration) and I don’t feel comforted. I have no doubt he and his friends would be swift to deal out “justice” and retribution on their enemies once they are in power as Trump and his allies have done and are doing to theirs. None of this is what governments of a free nation should be busy about, but our “left” and “right” seem obssessed by it.|
C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity says it best:
“The devil always sends errors into the world in pairs–pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one.”
Alyssa and Shoshana, thank you for these insights. I had never read that CS Lewis quote before, but WOW, does it capture our cultural moment.
Although I have complicated personal feelings about Jesus, I have always noticed how he refused to be co-opted by any of the competing political-religious movements of his day, and how many “strange bedfellows” were created in rivals coming together to hate him and ultimately conspire against him. I think of the verse in John 2:23-25, he entrusted himself to no one, for he knew what was in each man’s heart.
Bare Marriage’s work analyzing and combatting modern day Pharisees is right and much-needed. However, we should be careful not to be tempted to admire modern day Sadducees, either. The lack of intellectual honesty and mindless loyalty found among the conservative evangelical movement is terrible. But its crudeness and overt love of ideology over truth does not mean that secular, progressive voices don’t have the same fervor for ideology over truth and human wellbeing.
So true! Jesus was indeed loved by a strange diversity of people, and hated by a strange diversity of people. I actually really appreciate that about him. He wasn’t trying to flatter or kiss up to anyone; it was the truth he cared about, and he was always unapologetically himself.
And my goodness, that Lewis quote is indeed perfect for our cultural moment! Thank you for sharing, Shoshana.
People who teach complementarianism as authoritarianism are not teaching the Bible. Scripture calls men to lead “sacrificially” as Christ did for the church. Biblical leadership is servant leadership. That is NOT to say that men should not lead their families. I don’t know how you could argue that they are not supposed to. What do you do with Biblical wives who want their husbands to lead? The article is a false equivication. Authoritarianism and Complementarianism are NOT the same thing. Just because someone wears a label and then defies it or abuses it does not mean that the idea is wrong. Simply the person “abusing/lording” is wrong. It just so happens that there are bad, abusive husbands who are complementarian as well as egaliterian. It is not the system of understanding the word that makes a person bad. Being a leader has never been Biblically “lording”, quite the opposite. Biblical leadership is about serving and this is what men are called to do. Lead and serve!
“Biblical leadership is servant leadership.”
Servant leadership was a term coined by Robert Greenleaf, a quaker, in 1970. The emphasis was on the “servant” part to empower others in a non-hierarchal leadership style that is based on collaboration and building consensus spirit led decision making. Complementarians misappropriated this term and use it in a way that was never meant.
“Biblical leadership is about serving and this is what men are called to do. Lead and serve!”
You talk about serving, but in the same breath, you put the emphasis on the lead before the serve. That is not how servant leadership was originally meant to be. It’s a servant first approach to empower others. The desire to lead stems from a natural, conscious choice to serve the highest priority needs of others. Jesus’ teaching that “the first will be last, and the last will be first” (Matthew 20:16) emphasizes humility, selfless service, and a reversal of worldly status in God’s kingdom. So your concept of servant leadership as taught by complementarianism is wrong plain and simple.
Others have addressed your comments on complementarianism and the lead and serve points, but I’d just like to point out, that this article doesn’t say that Complementarianism IS Authoritarianism. It says that they both utilize similar practices/playbooks for dealing with criticism and working to gather followers. Arguing that Complementarianism isn’t Authoritarianism since Authoritarianism is always bad kinda misses the point of an article trying to point out that Authoritarianism is bad.
Actually, Eugene, there is nowhere in Scripture where men are commanded to lead their wives. Nowhere. The only place where authority is specifically mentioned in marriage is in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, and there it is completely mutual.
I know your interpretation is different then mine but, yes, the Bible does teach it. It doesn’t specifically say “lead your wife” but when Ephesians 5 says the husband is the “head of the wife” AS Christ is the church (He, Christ, certainly is our leader even though it doesn’t use that word), it certainly depicts leadership. And, as I have argued, Biblical leadership is sacrifice, servanthood and humility. I basically agree with Shoshana, the first response to my comment (except for her concluding statement). My point was complementarianism that teaches leadership wrong is wrong. If it teaches it right, it’s right, plain and simple. It’s not the view that is wrong, it’s what some have done with the view. In response to George, the articles coming out recently have bashed complementarianism as evil (if that is not the case, please say so) … it has equated it with authoritariansm. My wife and I have been married for 31 years and believe in the complementarianism view. I guarantee you that you could interview my wife and she would tell you that I have never been “bossy, domineering, or authoritarian” and neither would I want to be. I value my wife, her input, wisdom, discernment, etc. If I incorrectly understand that Sheila is against complementarianism in everyway than, Sheila, please clear that up for us.
The Greek word for head there doesn’t have a connotation of leadership. There were other words that Paul could have used that do mean leadership, and that are often translated as head, but Paul didn’t use those ones.
That’s the only argument for men being in authority, and when you look at the context and the original language, it doesn’t hold up.
Eugene, thank you for your courteous response. I agree that the articles on this site don’t agree with the complementarian view. In fact that is somewhat the premise of this article, i.e. “if you agree with me about Complementarianism being bad, please see how what the US government is doing is bad”. However, that that means that if you don’t agree with her on the issues with Complementarianism, then there’s really nothing to argue in regards to the premise of this article.
If your challenge is to the thoughts on Complementarianism as a whole, I’d encourage you to read several of the articles specifically addressing that, which lay out several arguments and resources to explain why they believe this way.
I commented something similar on the Facebook post, but again I am dismayed to see the Holocaust and Nazi terror mentioned without actually identifying the primary victims: Jews. Why can’t you say their name? Why do you sidestep their identity, vaguely referring to “people’s rights” and “a certain group of people”? Would you do that if you were talking about slavery and black people, or Japanese Americans and their WW2 internment? It honestly seems intentional.
Jewish trauma is not our analogy. And just because we’re Christians and share some religious history with them we do not get to speak for them or assume we understand. Antisemitism is skyrocketing. Please stop removing Jewish people from the center of their story. Find some other authoritarian examples, or at least say their name: Jews. They’re called Jews, and they didn’t stop existing at the end of “Bible times.” If you want to actually listen to Jewish people and hear how hurtful it has been this past week on Holocaust Remembrance Day when so many refused to acknowledge them, start with rootsmetals.com. She writes accessible, well-researched articles.(For what it’s worth I completely agree with you completely on complementarianism and the ICE violence in Minnesota. I just ask that you also show consistency in your morality by listening to Jews.)
The reason I didn’t mention Jews specifically is that the analogy is not really about Jewishness but about “otherness”. Today the people being targeted are not Jews; and even during the Holocaust, it was not only Jews, though they were the biggest group and the most targeted. Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust; 11 million were killed altogether. The Holocaust teaches us that we can’t “other” people, whether they be Jews or Roma or the intellectually disabled or anyone.
Then wives are leading their husbands constantly by serving. Why is it servant leadership when men do it but not when women do it?
Also, the very definition of complementarianism is that husbands are in authority over their wives. And why are they in authority? Simply because they are men? These are not good reasons for leadership, if that’s a term you want to use.
Leadership in any other context is about skills and fitness to lead.
And the sacrificial service the Bible talks about regarding husbands and wives isn’t about leadership: it’s about honor and love.
Also, so many others here can explain better, but to me, saying “a husband who is abusing his wife is just doing authority wrong” sounds like saying, “a lord who is abusing his vassal is doing authority wrong.” But most people now believe a noble or lord shouldn’t even have a vassal; it is demeaning and dehumanizing for men to be treated that way at all. And so with wives. They do not belong to nor are they “under” their husbands. They are full human beings under God alone. They can choose to be in partnership with men, but they are not under any man’s authority.
Sheila,
Alex Pretti was not just going about his normal day unless you call the newly surfaced videos of him vandalizing an ICE vehicle spitting at an agent, screaming vulgarities, and throwing a toddler tantrum “normal.” He was documented as receiving medication for a broken rib gotten from a previous violent altercation with ICE. Additionally, he has been identified as one of the highly organized and funded law obstructionists on the Signal chats. Rene Good was also shown on videos to be using her vehicle to obstruct law enforcement previous to this. She had not, in fact just dropped off her kid at school but was there on scene already involved.
I’m a die hard egalitarian of many years. Please do not do law enforcement a dis service by using them as a comparison to Complementarians.
Law enforcement is charged with and have actual authority to carry out and enforce the laws of the land. Complementarians have imaginary authority, no right to enforce opinions (not laws) and entertain delusions of grandeur.
Regardless of which camp we fall in Comp/Egal, we have the luxury of freeze frame analysis. Law Enforcement does not. When chaos is happening they literally MUST make split second decisions. When protestors like Good and Pretti who were part of a highly organized operation to interfere with law enforcement legally enforcing the law, decide to follow through, sadly, people will die.
If we presume that all of that earlier footage and the conclusions drawn from it are 100% accurate, I’d like to point out that in the scenarios that resulted in these killings neither individual was at that time doing anything worthy of lethal force (even if Renee was pointing a car at him with express intent to run him over). If all of your arguments are correct, Renee and Alex should have at worst been arrested.
I’ll also note that the fact that Alex had previously had his ribs broken says more about ICE brutality than it does about Alex. And it also adds further color to why he was suddenly killed if it was because he was confirmed by ICE as a known problem and they wanted him out of the way.
Yes, exactly. That previous footage merely shows that they targeted him specifically, which changes it to premeditated murder.
There is absolutely no excuse for shooting a man on the ground with their back to you ten times. There just isn’t. Please stop making excuses for murdering a man in cold blood.
I’ve been mulling this over and wonder if Canadians would see any similarities between the current accusations of authoritarianism against ICE/Trump administration and previous, similar accusations against the Trudeau administration’s approach to Covid restrictions/mandates and their response to the “Freedom Convoy” in 2022?
I think it’s interesting to consider these somewhat similar situations where in one instance the political “right” made up the protesters, and in the other it was the political “left.” I know they aren’t identical, but they are quite similar. If nothing else, maybe considering the similarities would help us to understand the other “side” (whichever that is for any given individual) and seek to find solutions rather than a straight up power struggle?
NOTE: I am deleting comments that spread lies about Renee Good and Alex Pretti that have been debunked. Pretti was not reaching for his gun (it had already been removed at the point he was shot). Just because Renee Good rolled her window down and slowly drove away from Jonathan Ross does not mean she should have been shot. She was simultaneously being ordered to Get out of the car and Get out of here by two different agents. It was impossible for her to obey.
Let’s be clear: both Good and Pretti do not bear ANY responsibility in their own deaths, and I will not tolerate any posts insinuating that they do. The fact that people want to justify citizens being shot in the streets for no reason is wild, and makes me mourn for the America I thought I knew.
I simply will not have misinformation in my comments section.
Oh Sheila,
My heart is hurting after reading that you’ve decided you know exactly what did and didn’t happen, and that you’re stifling all voices that disagree with you. I’ve been following your work with great appreciation. You’ve taught me a lot and helped uplift my spiritual life. But your chosen action in this situation is itself an example of “othering.” Will you next choose to refuse spiritual help to someone based on their voting record?
Kenna, I’m all about sharing truth, and I will always do that! I don’t understand, quite frankly, why protesting innocent people being shot in the street is seen as somehow attacking others.
Alex Pretti was the one who died that I’m referring to here. So did Renee Good. They matter. The fact that you see this as me turning against people is, well, strange? Can you not see that my whole platform is about uncovering when power has corrupted and has hurt people?
Kenna, I would argue that this article is itself offering spiritual help to those who vote different than her (or than she would, given that she’s Canadian). This article is calling on those who are choosing to believe the “official” story, despite substantial evidence to the contrary, to evaluate the actions of the Trump administration and question the patterns/playbook involved. To see that there are multiple similarities between that and what the big name complementarian pastors are doing. To hopefully show that if you appreciate her and the team exposing the twisting of truth there, then you’ll hopefully come to appreciate the exposing the twisting of the truth here too.
In regards to the “you’ve decided you know exactly what did and didn’t happen” comment, may I ask what information could be discovered that would change what happened to be okay legally or morally? I agree that there could be a lot of information we don’t know about exactly what happened leading up to this (though we know a decent amount), what exactly his motives were, etc. However, those things would only change whether he should have been charged with a crime or not; whether it was acceptable for him to be arrested/detained or not. It does not change the fact that lethal force was used in a situation where it was not warranted (legally nor morally) and instead of an investigation into the shooting to ensure all was on the up and up, it was stamped as “they were an ‘other’, so it’s good that we killed them”. All of this should move the conversation away from the politics of what happened and into an objective outcry at the illegal and morally reprehensible murder of an individual by the government.
Thank you, George. Well said!