I got a copy of this book from the local library. I like that the author took the approach of primarily creating a historical document rather than editorializing about the ramifications of the Evangelical push towards Toxic Masculinity (she doesn't even use the term from what I recall).
My takeaways:
- The church became enamored with the ruggedly individualistic picture of leadership, courage and strength portrayed by movie heroes, generally, and John Wayne, specifically.
- Throughout the 20th century, this image became purposefully used and associated with Christianity and specifically Christian manhood and leadership.
- In the positive sense, the image created this idea that the men of the church should see their primary goal to be the protection of the weak of society, specifically, families and women.
- In the negative sense, this led to putting men in a specific box (the John Wayne) box, including recharacterizing Jesus's life and actions on earth, and using this as a measure of their spiritual condition. So-called "weak" or "effeminate" men could never be church leaders. Patriarchy is portrayed as a godly and Biblical model.
- Also in the negative sense, this led to a toxic masculine leadership model. Our godly leaders must be obeyed, never questioned, and rule by iron fist is the model of righteous leadership, not evidence of domineering.
- Politically, the Evangelical church became coupled to the "hawkish" factions within government. Friends of the military and friends of those who want to use our military to enforce American values (all in the name of protecting the home front).
- Also, in the negative sense, the positive concept of protection of women and children did not come with a desire to be accountable for protecting women and children. Thus, the hero worship took over and leaders tend to be exonerated of their abuse of women and children, and women and children are expected to sacrifice whatever they might hold dear on the altar of the greater mission.
Overall, it's a good read, well researched and definitely helps understand how the church became politicized.
6 comments:
It's a very thought-provoking book.
The trajectory of Grudem's opinion on Trump is the same as I observed among those who would call themselves "Bereans" in my PCA church at the time. (And I too was swept up in voting for him) Those who had promoted this or that Puritan author with caveats about their heresies (although slavery was never mentioned as one) were encouraging others to vote for a "baby Christian" who quoted "Two Corinthians," and had appeared on Howard Stern. Trump's objectification of women was never discussed.
What is fascinating about Trump is that church culture is not a one-way street. I was surprised when the author laid out the timeline of Trump's rise to power. At first, the Evangelical elites tried to rally behind Cruz and Rubio, but they didn't have the tough image that Trump had, and they were insiders, they mostly didn't like Trump for a number of good reasons. The problem was that he fit the leaders' description of good masculine traits (i.e. toxicity) and the congregations left the leadership behind. This left the leaders in an awkward place and they finally, begrudgingly, endorsed him.
Yes, it seems that all of evangelicalism was driven off a cliff by the most misogynistic parts of church culture. We didn't have good choices in that election. And I actually feel sympathetic to a point toward leaders having to stand against the most vile and rabid parts of their flock. Perhaps this shows why churches, as non-profits (not having to pay taxes!) should not be in business or politics, but rather in genuine service. But then that would mean that they would have to humbly give, rather than griftily take.
The man they chose to be their king and defeat their enemy was very much a reflection of the character of fundamentalist evangelicalism, though many of us didn't realize it at the time, because we couldn't fathom that things were really that bad.
Upon reflection, and after considering how women have been treated in church culture, I wish to retract my pity expressed in my above comment. Why should I have sympathy for these men, who wouldn't have to worry about losing their power within their congregations if they had never grabbed that power and lorded it over people in the first place?
I listened to a podcast ("Uncertain") interview with the women at the center of the Central Indiana Presbytery (PCA) sexual abuse situation. One of them mentioned that she didn't pursue a restraining order against her perpetrator "pastor", even though consulting attorneys had drawn it up and advised her to do it, because she "felt sorry for him".
This man had rubbed against her body parts right in front of her husband, among other things.
It is frustrating to see intelligent, educated women trying to work within a system that is set up against them at every turn (Aimee Byrd). And women act as though these matters should be handled by church "courts", when oftentimes criminal acts have occurred. Our sympathy/empathy is manipulated by wolves who don't have those qualities.
In fifteen states now, it is illegal for a pastor to form a sexual relationship with a counselee. It should be illegal in all fifty, but at least that's something.
These women, one by one, have followed the Bible and first, left their denominations behind, and then left their denominations.
Women who understand the Bible and have opined that "complementarianism" is just a euphemism for classic authoritarianism and domineering do not find themselves in the good graces of the authority structures that feed off of subservient women.
Beth Moore realized that the SBC was not a safe place for women, and I expect that Aimee Byrd will come to the same conclusion about the OPC.
I wish more RPCNA members would read this book, because the RPCNA seems to match this book's notion that: the majority of white evangelicals believe that our country’s flourishing depends on aggressive male leadership. With the 2024 election coming down to Trump vs Biden (again, ugh), these topics are once again relevant.
Post a Comment