In my last blog, I spoke almost exclusively about the political side of Du Mez’s book, Jesus and John Wayne. I purposefully didn’t spend a lot of time on the major aspect that pushed Evangelicals into politics to begin with: gender roles.
I have a lot to say about this topic. It will come up in several books I intend to discuss in the future; but Du Mez tackles this from a political slant, so I will attempt to keep my remarks (mostly) about that.
Gender Roles and Politics
There are many aspects of political Evangelicalism Du Mez covers, but gender roles is the most consistent one. From the earliest beginnings of the faith, Evangelical Christians advocated for traditional gender roles. “Traditional” being the 1950s norms – where men worked and were head of the house, and women stayed home and submitted to their authority.
Young Evangelicals inherited a faith based on how men should be leaders (both at home and in society), should have “masculine” attributes, and should protect the nation. Women, on the other hand, should submit. In all areas.
Why? I hate to say “power,” but what other answer is there? If we were two-hundred years removed, we’d have no problem saying it.
But with history so close, it’s an uncomfortable thing to say. Did James Dobson – whose Focus on the Family we all grew up with – really just want political power in the hands of Evangelical Christians? Was that his main goal? From the vast amount of documentation Du Mez gives, yes.[1]
But…we’re Christians. We know that power in the world is not something we should strive for. At least we should know that.
To be fair, I truly believe the ring leaders of Evangelical thought were trying to course-correct a nation rocked by uncertainty and change. The 1960s and ‘70s took its toll, and the biggest change on their radar was gender roles.
Granted, Evangelicalism encompasses more than simply gender roles. But Du Mez lays out a convincing case that men leading and women submitting was the top priority among Evangelicals, and a political one at that. If you doubt it, the fact that John Piper wrote an article about Sarah Palin entitled, “Why a Woman Shouldn’t Run for Vice President, but Wise People May Still Vote for Her” should convince you.[2]
My Reaction to Gender Politics
It was shocking to uncover the roots of this faith I inherited; but it was a whole other experience when Du Mez talked about the parts I lived through.
The Purity Culture of the early 2000s wasn’t talked about very much, as its core foundations had been laid earlier. But Joshua Harris’ I Kissed Dating Goodbye and Rebecca St. James’ Wait for Me were given a shout out. John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart was talked about at length.
I read Rebecca St. James’ book as tween. I had a silver purity ring. Although I didn’t have an awkward purity ball where I promised my father I’d wait to have sex until marriage,[3] I did have a purity party with the girls in my small group. None of those are bad per se; but they border on cultish, reek of propaganda, and are based on control.
As an adult, I read John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart and the companion book co-authored with his wife, Captivating. In fact, many of my blogs are founded on what he wrote. Du Mez says Wild at Heart “set the tone for a new Evangelical militancy in the new millennium.”[4] When I flipped through my copy, I found distasteful quotes note even mentioned in Du Mez’s work. I couldn’t believe I’d read this and let it inform me on what a man should be like. Definitely cultish, definitely propaganda.
And I wept – for all the damage it did to my relationships; mainly with men, but also with women, whom I judged if they didn’t conform to conservative gender roles. Because women judging other women and pressuring them to conform is a strong theme in Du Mez’s book, too.[5]
But I wept most of all for the pointlessness of it all. Was the political power worth it? Was the disillusionment of a generation simply collateral damage? And why is no one really taking this seriously? At least, no one in power seems to be. And that truly is a tragedy. We’re losing a generation, and it’s because we’ve become too proud to admit we might be wrong.
The Indoctrination of a Generation
The most fascinating part of this is that parents of millennials didn’t seem to realize what was happening. At least mine were surprised to learn I had such strict beliefs. But Du Mez’s book makes sense of that, too.
During my parents’ young adult years – when you really make your faith your own – more moderate Evangelicalism was in vogue. They came to faith before the conservative branch of Evangelicalism took over the seminaries, organizations, and big churches, effectively sidelining the moderate views.[6]
So, the young men who went to seminary and then taught the middle school, high school, college, and newly marrieds had all been indoctrinated into the conservative ways of thinking.[7] What’s more, parents were discouraged from being part of their children’s small groups. Granted, this was to help children make the faith their own; and yet, it also served to isolate and indoctrinate an entire generation.
And so, without our parents’ knowledge, millennials were radicalized into believing God wanted Republican men who led and Republican women who submitted. There was no middle ground.
Where Do We Go From Here?
I find it absurd that the reaction to the pain and upheaval of the 1960s and ‘70s was to hunker down on traditional gender roles. Doing so through power politics is utterly incomprehensible. I said it last time, and I’ll say it again: the way to bring our nation to God is to STOP focusing on political power to enforce our world view, especially when it comes to gender roles. I guarantee you, we’re doing far more harm than good.
You cannot reach the heart through rules – which is what politics is. You reach the heart by listening to the hurting, by asking yourself, “What are these people yearning for? How does God meet this need? How can churches help others see that Jesus meets this need?”
Granted, we should not condone sinful behavior; yes, we must be holy. But I’m not so certain we’re called to force the rest of the world into holiness. (Ironically, Piper’s article on Palin alludes to this.)
When people look at us, they should see Christ. Not a macho version of Christ, made in the image of John Wayne. The real one. Who wept (Jn 11:35). Who sought out foreigners in distress (Jn 4:7-26). And who treated women as equals (Luke 10:39-42).
Politics is a distraction. Start fighting for what really matters – hearts.
Love and compassion are the heart of God. If the world sees something else, then we’re doing something wrong.
Notes
[1] Du Mez’s discussion on Dobson begins in “Chapter 4: Discipline and Command,” especially his views on how “preserving distinct gender roles was critical to turning back the tide of social chaos” (quote from p. 81, and I *think* that might be accurate to a hardcopy). Dobson linking it to a “political vision” begin in the same chapter at p. 86 on my copy.
[2] “Chapter 14: Spiritual Badasses,” p. 220; John Piper’s article can be found here
[3] “Chapter 9: Tender Warriors”
[4] Chapter 10: No More Christian Nice Guy, p. 163
[5] Phyllis Shlafly and Elizabeth Elliot, both first mentioned in “Chapter 3: God’s Gift to Man;” and women in general in “Chapter 6: Going for the Jugular”
[6] “Chapter 9: Tender Warriors”
[7] “Chapter 11: Holy Balls”
