Mainline Christians are salt of the earth people.
Ever noticed that? They often fill all the volunteer slots at soup kitchens. They do the Christmas and Thanksgiving community giving programs. They volunteer with recent immigrants and refugees. It’s often the more mainline churches that are the most involved in making the community a better place and being Jesus’ hands and feet there.
We’ve noticed that as we’ve been attending an Anglican church for the last few years. People truly want to build a lovely community.
And in the last year, mainline churches in the US have been especially motivated by to work against injustice. Just last week I saw yet another news story of clergy being arrested outside an area where ICE was operating–and one of those clergy was a very pregnant woman, being led away in cuffs.
While evangelicals are conspicuously absent from these modern day issues of injustice, mainline Christians are often on the forefront of it.
Except they have a blindspot, and I want to talk about it today.
First, a caveat: I realize that the words “evangelical” and “mainline” don’t properly convey what I’m trying to say. It’s hard to divide churches into definite groups like these, and there are other groups as well that seem to be left out. So I’m using these words as a shortform, though I know that they aren’t entirely accurate. I’m thinking “evangelical” for churches that tend to have male hierarchy and an emphasis on a personal relationship with Christ rather than stressing the community; and I’m using “mainline” for more progressive churches that focus less on “saying the sinner’s prayer” and more on what it means to live out love.
Likely many egalitarian evangelical churches would be in the “mainline” category for my purposes today.
Also, this post is part of a larger series I’m doing on the roadblocks for fighting for justice for women and children in evangelical spaces. I talked on Monday about how evangelical church services and theology actually work directly against a pursuit of justice, by making Christianity into only a personal religion (think “Jesus is enough!” and “all I need is Jesus!”). Today I want to turn to why mainline churches, though they care about injustice, seem to ignore the injustice towards women in other Christian spaces.
I’ve been distressed by how many manifestations of Christianity have ignored the injustice of Christian misogyny
In my experience, the issue of women being subordinate in evangelicalism is seen by more mainline Christians as merely a doctrinal choice, or a theological difference, rather than as an issue of justice.
Where women are made subordinate, abuse of women and children flourish.
Studies have shown that when rape myths are believed or domestic violence myths are believed, we’re likely to see higher rates of abuse. And we see a greater degree of domestic violence myth acceptance in many of the complementarian traditions. We also see women being devalued; women being inaequately educated or prepared for life; women being made more vulnerable; children being denied proper education; and so much more. In so many of the circles that teach male supremacy (which complementarianism does), we see social structures that are designed to promote male entitlement and thus devalue everyone else.
One only needs to read memoirs like Cait West’s Rift or Tia Levings’ A Well Trained Wife to know how deeply these theologies can hurt people.
Real women right now are being harmed in complementarian spaces.
This does not mean that all women and children are being harmed. But these complementarian spaces are conduits to more fundamentalism (both Tia’s and Cait’s families started off in run-of-the-mill complementarian evangelical churches). And the best-selling books in these communities, as we’ve shown, promote things like marital rape. One of our recent peer reviewed studies showed how teen girls raised in church spaces where modesty rules are taught are more likely to experience victimization as teens both from their pastors and from their peers. Real people are being hurt.
I don’t see an urgency on the part of mainline churches to fight against complementarianism
When I talk with mainline pastors and leaders, they’re often not even aware of how deep the misogyny goes in many of these spaces. They see the difference more in terms of doctrine and what we think of salvation (mainline churches are more focused on following Jesus in our daily lives than they are on making sure everyone “says the prayer.”). They see the problem as more political in nature, especially in the United States.
But there doesn’t seem to be this awareness that, in their own city, state or province, or country, other churches, using the same Bible they do and the same language they do, are subordinating women, with everything that entails.
It’s more like they just write off these evangelicals as crazy or as pro-Trump, but they don’t realize that maybe what we need is a sustained campaign to:
- raise awareness of what is being taught in these churches about gender (and about racism!)
- show that there is a different way to understand how Jesus sees gender
- reach out specifically to evangelicals, especially women, to show how the gospel doesn’t need women to be subordinate
I remember an interview with N.T. Wright, the former bishop of Durham who has written some wonderful books about what the gospel entails, being interviewed by American Christian media, and being asked about women as pastors. He chuckled and said that in the UK they had dealt with this issue 45 years ago, and he found it so strange that it was still an issue in the USA, but then he went on to give a very good answer.
I think that’s often the response of many mainline believers, though: “we dealt with this ages and ages ago, if you all want to wallow in what is obviously wrong doctrine, go right ahead while we will just get on with the work of following Jesus.”
There’s kind of a disdain for evangelicals (which I understand from their perspective), and a determination to leave evangelicals to their own devices (I’m not accusing NT Wright of doing this, since the whole reason he was in the US was actually to try to reach out to this group!).
But is it okay to write off a HUGE swath of those who claim Christ and use the same Bible you do just because they are so obviously wrong and unjust on so many issues? It’s one thing to do this when it’s merely a doctrinal disagreement. But the problem is that the things that evangelicals are largely wrong about are things that have consequences for real people, and real people are suffering abuse as a result.
And often those who are suffering the most are those who did not embrace evangelicalism as a true choice, but instead were born into it, grew up in a bubble, and this was all they have ever known. They don’t realize there are other ways to see Jesus than as someone who is primarily concerned with who is in charge.
In the Anglican church I go to, I’d imagine that 80% have no idea what evangelicals believe about women
Because the women issue has been settled for so long, it’s hard for them to imagine thinking differently. And they just don’t encounter a lot of evangelicals in their social circles or in places where they may debate doctrine. So they just think that evangelicals are strong believers who are a little more emotional about their faith than Anglicans are!
And there’s very little curiosity to go any deeper.
But again, people are being hurt in churches down the street, and children are having their education curtailed, and people are being sucked into extremism, and those in the more mainline traditions who have something to offer–namely a more complete version of Jesus–aren’t really saying anything about it.
One of the hallmarks of more mainline traditions is that they’re really inoffensive.
They are genuinely good people. But they don’t get angry about very much. And it’s that anger against injustice that often fuels social change.
Esau McCaulley, a biblical scholar and professor at Wheaton, has written some books about African American biblical interpretation, including Reading While Black, which is next in my to-read pile. I think it may have the answers I’m looking for as I try to figure out why I can’t get the two primary church traditions that I’m used to–evangelicalism and mainline denominations–to act against injustice towards women. But one of the things I’ve heard him say is that he’s afraid that many who are leaving the evangelical church are finding solace in white mainline spaces, but neither space has an answer to injustice. The evangelical one doesn’t have an answer because it chooses to focus on individual and deny that problems exist; and the mainline doesn’t because culturally it has chosen to be agreeable.
But we don’t get change by being agreeable.
Someone has to care about the injustices towards women in evangelicalism.
Yes, this is hard because women are adults whom we can hold accountable for what they choose to accept. Yes, women can walk away. But anyone who has worked in cult deprogramming knows that it isn’t that easy. And it is not only adult women who are being hurt; it is children and teen girls too.
When people are being subjugated using the very Scriptures that we claim to believe, I believe that all Christians have a moral obligation to call this out and fight against it. This is taking the Lord’s name in vain, and we can’t let that stand. It isn’t just a doctrinal disagreement.
What I’d love to see is for more mainline churches to realize that it is an affront to Jesus to have women being subjugated in His name, and those of us who are Jesus followers, whatever church we’re in, have an obligation to call this out and attempt to help people who are being hurt in His name.
What I don’t know is what that would look like–so let me know your suggestions in the comments!
So far we’ve looked at the obstacles from different faith expressions to solving the problem of women’s subordination in evangelicalism–we’ve seen how evangelicals work against justice, and how mainline churches often downplay the urgency of the problem. Next I want to look at people who see the problem–but don’t think the women there are worthy of our attention.
Just before clicking on this, I saw a Facebook post by the Botkin sisters apologizing for promoting the stay-at-home daughter movement. They wrote a super-long article debunking all their former assertions and released a shorter apology on video. One commenter said “but you were just teenagers when you wrote that 20 years ago” and it made me think how they were merely being used as pawns. Same for Joshua Harris, only 21 when he published I Kissed Dating Goodbye. So these people who were too young to bear that much responsibility are apologizing to everyone they hurt (one of the Botkin sisters started crying in the video), but the old guard who bears the actual responsibility is doubling down.
I would like to know what became of the Botkin sisters. I haven’t heard about them in several years.
I am so happy for them! Apparently they both got married and have jobs and one has a kid and another is a step mom which I know under their dad they were never able to do due to how controlling he was and often chasing the potential suitors away (not that any of the suitors would probably be any good). I am glad they were able to break away from their father and have good marriages from the looks of it and prosperous careers. I know last time I heard of them I could tell they were starting to become a bit disillusioned as they reached their 30s so I am happy for them. It’s not easy escaping an abusive parent especially one that has done everything in their power to remain dependent on them.
I’m going off topic here, again, but Sheila, will you respond to that article in the Atlantic about how churchgoing couples have more sex? I think you already mentioned it once on Facebook and I’m sure other people have been asking. Some are already citing your research to push back on Brad Wilcox; I saw Elena Trueba’s reel about it on Instagram earlier today. I find it funny that the authors think a 49% (churchgoing wives report being sexually satisfied) to 38% (secular wives) ratio is an own. Half the women are still unsatisfied in an institution where marriage is supposed to symbolize Christ’s great love for the church! Not to mention “satisfied” is a nebulous word that means different things to different people.
I saw that article too and was wondering if the Bare Marriage folks would respond!
Is even the Atlantic getting on the “maybe those Christian conservatives are on to something with the sex stuff” bandwagon? Please no, they have no idea what they’ getting unsuspecting secular people into…
Yeah, I’m going to address it in tomorrow’s Friday Round-up and Substack!
I can’t wait! I’m not really that surprised at the Atlantic, I mean, the New York Times recently endorsed that submissive wife book! I do find it distressing, but that’s just how much the center has moved to the right.
Here’s the thing, though: I highly doubt secular people will read the Atlantic article and start going to church in pursuit of increasing their sexual satisfaction by 10%. That is not happening. But all the women in those churches who are having obligation sex are going to feel better about their lives if they get some validation from mainstream media. I suspect, based on your research, that those who are in the first five years of their marriage are outright gloating about the article, those married between 5-15 years are feeling some cognitive dissonance about it, and those married over 15 are just rolling their eyes. I checked the responses on the Atlantic’s FB post and a few women pointed out the lack of women’s bodily autonomy in a lot of these churches.
Yes, we’re talking about it in tomorrow’s Friday round up!
Wonderful! Thank you!
Mainline churches need some oxygen on the fire. Let’s hybridize mainline theology with a charismatic passion for prayer. The deep groaning, weeping, and fierce kind of prayer. But that starts with feeling others’ pain, and mainline attendees are very comfortable, well-heeled retirees… (who nevertheless tend to serve others with excellence, just not really “feel” their pain…)
“But we don’t get change by being agreeable.” I think this is the hard part because we also don’t get change with the people we know by telling people how wrong they are. Do that and they turn defensive and double down. Or they just change surface behavior when someone is looking. Few people are debated and argued into belief change. Then add on that the older a person gets, the harder it becomes to learn new things and more of their identity is at stake and it gets even harder to, for example, point family members to a better way. People talk about how they changed their minds because someone “just loved me” and “didn’t try to make me change.” But how do you do that and also speak up about what is wrong when speaking up is directly confronting someone? I think this is part of why we need community, because it is easy to have honest conversations with acquaintances than with family. Maybe we aren’t supposed to be the ones reaching our family? Maybe it’s supposed to be the community? I keep thinking about this and haven’t found a satisfying answer.
More broadly, I think a broad education is part of the answer. For example, if you know that the rapture is an idea only a few hundred years old compared to other, older ways of thinking about heaven and Jesus’ return, then, even if you don’t start to feel permission to explore, you at least start to wonder about those other perspectives. If you know that in the Middle Ages, women were preaching and respected for it, then you start wondering why things are different now. Education is dangerous to people who want things to stay how they like them.
Perhaps one of the greatest acts of resistance is to become broadly educated. I say “broadly” on purpose because I know people who claim to love learning, but they stay within the same ideological ecosystem. They are well educated on that one way of thinking, but have a limited education when compared to all the possibilities. Read/listen widely. You’ll never learn everything or even know about all that is possible to know, but the more you explore and consider ideas in relation to each other, the more independence and confidence you will have and the less easily you will be controlled.
So this is a total side tangent (and a bit of a rant!) but it makes me both sad and angry to see how the words ‘evangelical’ and ‘evangelism’ have been debased recently.
I grew up in ‘evangelical’ churches. In the old sense of the word – the Gospel, the ‘evangel’, the good news – proclaiming good news to the poor, sight to the blind, freedom to the captives. I grew up listening to ‘evangelists’ who believed that if the good news was as good as it was claimed to be, we should be seeking justice for the poor, the blind and the captive right now. It was the evangelical churches of my childhood who first started making noises about Fair Trade, who first starting talking about the need to protect and care for the planet as a beautiful gift that had been entrusted to us by God. It was the evangelical churches of my teens and 20s that organised sandwich runs and breakfast drop-ins for the homeless, and which provided accommodation and practical help for women who didn’t want to abort their babies but didn’t have a safe place to live or a support network. It’s the ‘evangelical’ churches that I know now who are running English classes for refugees and driving asylum seekers to medical appointments, who are running job seeker clinics for the unemployed and foodbanks for the hungry – only they’re not called ‘evangelical’ any more, because they know that word now means something different. Churches which emphasise the need for a personal relationship with Jesus AND the fact that if He is transforming your life, that is going to be expressed by practical outworking in your community.
If you look at the meaning and history behind the word ‘evangelical’, it is beautiful. But now UK churches are having to rename themselves or be branded as arrogant, ignorant and unloving. I don’t think we have a really accurate replacement for the word ‘evangelical’, and I feel like telling these people we want our word back!!!
I started going to an egalitarian church (Free Methodist) while still in my spiritually abusive, and otherwise abusive, complementarian marriage, because I was attracted to Wesleyan theology. I was initially hostile to the idea of equality in marriage when I heard it preached there.
When God led me out of the abuse years later, an investigator from Family Court Services had to write a report about the domestic violence for inclusion in the divorce trial (to see how to protect my children).
She interviewed my pastor to gain a deeper knowledge of whether this type of marriage was an expression of Christianity, he said, “No!” and explained that hierarchy in marriage was a twisting of scripture. He later did a training on spiritual abuse for their whole department, so they would be equipped for other similar family law cases they might encounter. I was so proud of my pastor!
I love that! That’s amazing.
Huh. I’m genuinely not sure how to respond to this call to action. I left evangelicism years and years ago, in large part because of its views on sex and gender, but for other reasons as well. Now, I’m just not sure what to even…do…about those I left behind. Does it make me furious? Yes. Absolutely furious. I can’t even talk about it with my husband calmly. But what are the inroads? Most really conservative evangelicals don’t believe I’m a Christian at all, so all of my interventions would be suspect from the get-go. I don’t know how to walk into an evangelical space and change minds. Anyone have any practical suggestions?
I think the big thing is just getting mainline churches to be LOUD about how much they follow Jesus, and that they value women. Do social media campaigns! Create more podcasts and content that aim at showing how mainline churches love Jesus (because evangelicals really do think they’re heretics) but also how treated women as subordinates is totally not okay and not in line with Christ. I think the problem with so many of the egalitarian books is that they’re theological in nature, but we need mainline churches modelling it while also being loud about their devotion to Christ.
This is spot-on. In my experience, the churches that don’t put restrictions on women still say something like “we recognize that different Christians have different opinions on this issue” rather than recognizing it as a *justice* issue. They treat it like people’s good-faith efforts to follow what they believe the bible is saying, are more important than doing something about the actual harm that is actually happening to real people in reality.
Yes, this is it entirely! It needs to be a justice issue, not a theology one.
In reading this wonderful article, education kept coming to mind. We would be terribly remiss if we shared that we did not know these men’s agenda for their churches, in part, and for the country as a whole. Education is one of the most powerful antibodies against this antigen: linear thinking where men are superior, therefore leaders, and women are subordinate, therefore followers. The enemy is smart, and we cannot deny that fact; but he is also limited and not too creative, for he has successfully perpetuated patriarchy, hierarchy, and misogyny all these decades and much in the same way – keeping men ignorant. These men behave as if they are desiring what our Founding Fathers had – positions of esteem and high regard. However, there is no possible way these men could ever reflect such stature because these men are uneducated compared to our Founding Fathers – and this is where I kept thinking of the word education as I read the article. One only needs to read a letter from Thomas Jefferson or George Washington’s Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation and place it against a sermon from Doug Wilson or John Piper to see that there is absolutely no competition. These men want to keep education from women so that they cannot evolve, form opinions, and provide for themselves. They want to define education as a means for men to rise to power and to limit interference and protest. Likewise, the enemy wants to keep true Biblical scholarship from these men so that they continue to emotionally and physically hurt women and destroy their health and the lives that could be spent as happy people. The enemy is surely limiting men’s vision and their ability to be better people, better creations from God, and to do better than their ancestors. Think what you will of our Founding Fathers, but when our Country made a mistake, she tried to correct it and do better. These days, we’re not really seeing that too much anymore, especially in our churches, and I believe the enemy could not be happier. I’d rather never be married than be a puppet for the enemy.
Yes! It’s like Mark Noll’s book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind–“the scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” We have lost education and intellectual curiosity.
This unexpectedly hits me. I’m an evangelical complementarian; however, not the kind this article describes (at least I don’t think so). I wrote recently about what Ephesians 5 asks of husbands: foot-washing, sacrificial love, giving yourself up rather than demanding your own way. My thesis is that biblical headship begins with sacrifice, not authority. I washed my wife’s feet at our wedding to demonstrate the kind of husband I intended to be.
I think what you’re describing — women being subjugated in Jesus’s name — is a genuine injustice and a misinterpretation and misapplication of Ephesians 5 in the worst way. I believe it’s a misreading of what Paul asked of husbands. The two concerns aren’t in conflict. A husband who loves his wife as Christ loved the church doesn’t need to subordinate her — he’s too busy serving her. In our home, I do more of the dishes, bake with my daughters, and vacuum. I’ll make the bed, but my wife does a much better job. We both cook, but my wife prefers to do most of the cooking. I listen to my wife, and we aim to make decisions together. She does rely on me to be a “handyman” even though she knows I’m terrible at it. She assembles pre-packaged assembly-required things better than I do. So, we do have different roles, but they overlap. The main point is that I am a servant-leader.
I’d be curious whether that distinction matters to you, or whether the framework itself is the problem regardless of how it’s applied.
Here’s the problem, Bob: The things that you’re describing are exactly what egalitarians say husbands should do too. The only difference between egalitarians and complementarians is one of authority–one where the husband gets to make the final decision. If you make decisions together, then you’re actually not a complementarian. You’re an egalitarian.
Most complementarians actually function as egalitarians, which is good, because as soon as you act out complementarianism, bad things happen.
So I’d just warn you that if you attribute your happy marriage to complementarianism, you could be sending some people down a very bad path, because they’ll follow your words, not your example.
Again, what you’re describing is egalitarianism, not complementarianism. Complementarianism has an authority structure; egalitarianism is based on mutuality as you follow Jesus together.
I don’t think this needs to be limited to the mainline churches. When I attended an evangelical church with healthy teachings on women that was in partnership with other churches whose teachings,were harmful I found it very triggering. I spoke to the leadership and at first got the responses you mentioned of theological differences. I used arguments similar to those you explain so well, calling them to justice and accountability and it landed well. As I spoke to others feeling the same and they also spoke up, it got traction. There are now conversations happening in that space. I’m praying it goes beyond talkjng and bears fruit!