Evangelical History
I recently stumbled across the book The Young Evangelicals by Richard Quebedeaux. Published in 1974, it gives a sociological overview of evangelicalism in America and the emergence of a (then) new generation of Evangelicals. The author seemed to have hoped that this new generation (who were more globally minded and service oriented than their fundamentalist counterparts) would define the future of the movement. Of course in hindsight, there was a backlash against these more progressive voices (i.e. Jim Wallis…) and the Religious Right ended up gaining the dominant voice in the evangelical world.
What I found fascinating though was seeing a picture of Evangelicalism from this time period that mirrored exactly what I grew up with in the 80’s and 90’s and that still exists today. The young evangelicals of the 1970’s did influence certain streams of evangelicalism, but this more fundamentalist variety retained a dominant voice. Interestingly enough, the streams had so diverged by the end of the 1970’s that people today in either camp are often surprised that the other exists. It’s like how repeatedly on this blog when I share my personal church experience there are always a couple of people who say that I am misrepresenting evangelicals with my portrayals. Of course, not all evangelicals are the same, the stream they know and the stream I know are just very different. I just wish the discussions could sometimes get past the debate of “whose evangelical experience is correct?”
So for instance, take this passage from the book on the role of women in traditional evangelical churches (note – Orthodox here refers to the new orthodoxy of doctrinally correct evangelicals)
Orthodoxy has not yet taken Women’s Liberation seriously. In almost all non-Pentecostal Evangelical or Fundamentalist denominations, women are not ordained to the ministry. “Unmarriageable” types, however, may be encouraged by their churches to make the ultimate sacrifice – to become a missionary. Single females are welcome on the mission field, but not in the home pulpit. Alternatively, an aspiring young lady with a graduate degree in theology might be called by an Orthodox church to become an unordained director of Christian education – for less pay than her ordained male counterpart would get for the same job. But, for a marriageable young lady in the typical Fundamentalist or Evangelical congregation, the highest vocational aspiration she can have is to become the wife of a minister. Every Orthodox pastor – lest he be regarded as a playboy or, worse yet, a homosexual – must have a wife. In taking on a minister, the young woman will lose her identity completely. The ideal pastor’s wife is simply an extension of her mate – sweet, sociable but not aggressive, talented, above reproach in her behavior and, above all, entirely submissive to the will and career of her husband. As such, she becomes a “nonperson” in every sense of the word. P.58-59
That perfectly describes (in far more blunt language than anyone would ever use today) the sort of evangelicalism I grew up in and still encounter on a regular basis. But many of the women I encounter online (i.e. those who already are educated and progressive enough to be participating in discussions about theology and religion), do their best to deny that women are ever treated that way within the evangelical world they know. While some of them do eventually take the time to reflect and admit that their voice has at times been silenced, they have never had to truly be seen as a “nonperson.” In my experience though women that are taught to lose their identity are also told that they shouldn’t think for themselves, and therefore rarely are present in conversations on religious matters. But it breaks my heart to see generations of women continuing to be taught to be nothing. I grew up in that environment and still have a foot in that world so I know it’s out there. But for many progressive evangelicals (or at least those with progressive evangelical roots), it can be easy to forget history and not grasp the nuances of our differences.
In some ways, just getting a glimpse of this history and understanding differences is helpful. I also wonder though if finding ways to say engage these "nonperson" women and help the ones who are cracking under the pressure of years of suppression of the self would be easier if we all were just open and honest about the sorts of pain that occur in the church without fearing tainting our own church’s reputations due to guilt by association? I don’t know, but sometimes a good understanding of where we all have come from helps mitigate that fear.
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
First off, what a confusing and unhelpful use of "Orthodox."
Oh well. We are all called to "lose our identities" – in Christ. We shouldn't simply "think for ourselves." It's actually impossible. Thought and knowledge are on some levels sociological phenomena. It is impossible to think with a blank slate; often what passes for "thinking for oneself" means taking on the arguments, interests, and views of the intellectual class. I saw this in seminary; people come in with one set of values, but leave with perhaps a different set altogether. Many – especially in the women's lib crowd – are happy to discover that they are victims of of systemic oppression. From then on, they too are now finally capable of thinking for themselves – and ironically this turns out to be exactly as their professors and colleagues thought.
I'm not sure what definition of "evangelical" is at work here. I'm a United Methodist; we are an evangelical church by definition, theology, and polity. We've had female preachers since well before there was a "liberation" movement.
I don't know how you tell someone that they are in fact a "non-person." That strikes me as rather arrogant. I came up around many Southern Baptists and I know many women of the type you describe; it struck me growing up that I knew many strong, intelligent and capable women who were thoroughly convinced that their husband should be the head of the household (whatever that means) and that women should not be be pastors. I find it strange, yes, but if that is the tradition they grew up in, the world that they know, it is doubtful such a person will changed based on the enlightened concern of an outsider.
I am rather certain they would take issue with being called "nothing." It may not be your idea of true womanhood, it may not be to your liking, but many women who could do many other things decide that they are called to be a homemaker. Likewise, an increasing number of husbands do the exact same thing. In neither case are they "nothing."
Dear Pastor Mack,
As a woman who grew up on the inside of a fundamentalist Baptist church (my pastor preached that the Southern Baptists were too liberal), I have to tell you that Julie's post is painfully on-target. I learned at a very early age that my female-ness automatically disqualified me from most things in life, other than homemaking and the mission field. This mantra was taught even on the church playground, where girls were ineligible to be team captains ("Let the boys lead," my Sunday School teachers would whisper). Women could not pray aloud in front of men; women and girls could not wear "man's clothing" (meaning pants of any kind) to church, to the store, or even at home raking leaves; women were disqualified from teaching 13-year-old boys; even passing the offering plate was an honor reserved for "men" aged 13 to 17.
Please note that, at this point in my life, I would love the luxury of not having to hold a job, but that is entirely beside the point: I was taught from the pulpit during my entire youth that, if a wife works outside the home or manages the finances, she is sinning against her husband. A woman's sole calling was to be a "help-meet" to her husband. And an unmarried woman was subject to the whim, I mean, authority of her father, until she was lucky enough to marry a different authority figure… a man chosen by her father, of course.
The fundamentalists will say that although women must always submit to his (father's or husband's) authority, "both are of equal worth before God." I'm sorry, but I didn't buy that even when I was 8. Try teaching inherent worth to a girl at the same time that you are teaching her that she will never get to make any major decisions for herself and let me know how that goes. I don't think Julie is saying that women in these circles–of which I was once a member–are actually non-persons, but rather that we've been explicitly taught that God wants us to suppress our personhood, to swallow our own wills in order to obey the will of a human with opposite reproductive organs. I managed this charade flawlessly for almost 25 years before I cracked.
Signed,
a former non-person
Hi Julie, I somehow linked to your blog from somewhere…. glad I did, and I hope you don't mind my adding a link to your blog from mine. It is very lonely for us emergent women over here in Germany, and I am glad for all the "sisterhood" I can find. This post is painfully true… not growing up in any church at all, my own becoming a "non-person" (my very own words when I describe my frustrations of the last 15 years!) by being a "staffer's" wife was a confounding and debilitating experience. And tho we "got out" by the seat of our pants and are starting our own community, it has been disheartening to discover, that the few progressive "Emergent" voices over here aren't all that interested in giving us women our personhood back.
Nice to know you are out there somewhere! I think I'll keep you, lee
Lucy and Lee – thanks so much for being willing to share a bit of your experiences here. Like Lucy said, it's not that we are nonpersons, just treated that way or encouraged to become that. And sadly there are enough emergent types who came out of evangelicalism who while being okay with questioning other cultural aspects of their faith tradition cannot let go of the control over women they've always had. And, Pastor Mack, women are suffering. They are cracking under the pressure of living a lie and suppressing the holy spirit inside of them. God made them for a purpose, and the church is telling them to deny God's voice in their life. It is hard to resist God for that long with pain. But they are told that questioning their place is a sure sigh they are not believers, so they are not even allowed to think about it. It is the cruelest form of manipulation.
I agree with Lucy; this post is a painful portray of the "fundamentalist" clique of Christianity. For most of these churches, I cannot teach, preach, or organize any intellectual activity other than nursery and MAYBE vacation Bible school. Oh, wait, I can make the food for the covered dish dinner. I grew up under this mentality. Women were always inferior mentally, physically, and spiritually. There is a double standard at work. For men/boys, the church openly allows them to explore their spiritual gift areas; however, women are subjugated to the position of silent nursery worker. I love my children, but I cringe at the thought of watching other people's children in the nursery. This not my gift area. For years, I questioned if God had given me a set of gifts in order to make me fail at being a Christian since I couldn't use them in the church. I would love to have been spared those years of heartache if I could/ should have been allowed to use the spiritual gifts given by God.
That's a great book.
I'd be interested to get your take on Bendroth's Fundamentalism and Gender and Griffith's God's Daughters. It seems to be getting at what you are saying here, this dichotomy of experience within evangelicalism by its women. I wonder if it's, in part, a matter of function: how such beliefs/opinions/theology function.
P-Mack,
I think the issue within certain streams of conservative evangelicalism is that women do not have a choice about what womanhood means. In these streams, the definition of maleness is expansive, generally understood. While the understanding of femaleness is restrictive. A man is allowed to do, addressed in terms of things he should do. A woman is addressed by things she should not do.
Certainly, many women become independent thinkers, empowered and productive in these contexts. I'm not so sure thought it is because of this context but in spite of it. It might be more of a testament to the resiliency and tenacity of these women — the flexibility with which individuals or families interpret these texts — than a testament to the appropriateness of such theology and views of femaleness.
I do know that when a woman in such a situation comes to a place of cognitive dissonance with this way of thinking it turns into a very damaging theology, particularly if her husband/faith community does not agree with her.
Also, it should be noted that patriarchy isn't limited to evangelicalism or created by it. Rather, patriarchy on this level is a way in which evangelicalism (and later Pentecostalism) became subservient to the culture. As much as you might enjoy trumpeting the success of early women preachers in the Methodist church, it should also be noted that the right of for women to preacher was revoked by Methodist when two early female preachers sought ordination. Again, maleness is expansive. Femaleness is restrictive.
Julie,
I grew up outside the church and one of the hardest things for me was finding that my voice was welcome in the market place but silenced in the evangelical church we attended. I worked on staff a at “seeker sensitive” type church. I was told, I could do anything I wanted to do but I better make sure that I was not seen as “leading”. Luckily we moved to Richmond and I went to Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond which was born out of the CBF split from the SBC. My seminary encouraged women to pursue pastoral roles. The sad part is that most of the graduates from my seminary who are women do not find jobs in churches. I myself started a ministry working with the homeless in the inner city, which I love, but if I wanted to work in a Baptist church, I would be hard pressed to find one that would accept me into a key leadership role.
I know that there are a few female voices around the progressive table, but honestly, it still looks and feels like a male dominated conversation. Why do you think that is? Are there just less of us or is there still a gender bias at work?
Hi, I know I am late to this conversation, but I really enjoyed this blog. I have to say that the blog and the comments have paralleled my own experience–especially Sarah's. (I am a mother of 5 children, but my blood pressure rises when I work in the nursery and I am exhausted afterward).
David, you hit the nail on the head very succinctly when you said "maleness is expansive. Femaleness is restrictive." When I was a child, I can remember telling my mother that I wished I had been born a boy because they were allowed to do the things that I was interested in.(If I had a dollar for every time that I have heard the words "women can't do that," I'd be rich today). Then there is the continuous stream of messages (subtle and not so subtle) that confirm that females are not as good as males because maleness is held up as the standard of measure. There were times that I felt ashamed to be female such as when certain pastors talk about the "feminisation" of the church like it is a dirty word. I was definitely a "non-person" until I finally heard a different viewpoint. I had lost sight of who I was, so much so, that I didn't really find joy in anything and had lost any desire for the things that I once loved.
As for the question that Wendy asks about why there are so few female voices around the progressive table–I have found that gender is rarely considered a justice issue. There are a number of groups that work hard for racial and economic justice, but when asked about including gender in the discussion, don't think that it is in the same category. I think that many people don't see it as an injustice that women are so often overlooked, ignored, or excluded from having a voice in the direction of the church. I think it is a blind spot. I spoke with my pastor about being intentional about inviting women into leadership and providing the same opportunities to be mentored and minister as they provide for men. It was something that he hadn't noticed and fortunately he immediately brought it up to the elders and they are discussing it.