What would it look like to make liberal women a target market for the church?
For many decades, evangelical churches in America, most of whom would be classified as Protestant and Baptist, even while they shirk those labels for something like non-denominational, have been living under the guiding hand of managerialism. No generation perfected this art better than the boomer seeker-sensitive pastors. These were pastors who turned the church corporate. While maintaining airs of biblical authority, they also made the ministry a market commodity. Sermons were not focused on biblical exposition as much as “felt needs” to attract people. The removal of crosses and denominational affiliations was rampant. It could be argued that church planting itself was an expression of this market-based approach to reaching new customers. Many CEOs and marketing departments coined a name for their ideal customer profile even going so far as to give them a name. Church leaders followed their lead. For example, Rick Warren coined Saddleback Sam. This was a common business management technique of the day. Under managerial Christianity, the health of the church is not seen in her holiness and faithfulness but instead in the church’s ability to attract new customers.
Several sociologists have observed that men are experiencing a newfound appreciation for and interest in Christianity. For decades, the church has been matriarchal, finely tuned to the appetites and preferences of women. This has also been noted by David Murrow, author of Why Men Hate Going to Church. While this has been occurring, women have become more liberal. At a staggering rate, young women are more liberal than men. Just as concerning, 56% of liberal white women aged 18-29 have been diagnosed with a mental health condition. Women are unhappy and anxious. Seeking to meet this need (but often exacerbating it), some authors have attempted to reach these women. Glennan Doyle’s Untamed and Brene Brown’s The Gifts of Imperfection hit the themes of personal empowerment and embracing authenticity hard. Other authors, such as Rachel Hollis, with her book Girl, Wash Your Face, have tailored these themes for evangelical women. Just see Made for This: 40 Days to Living Your Purpose by Jennie Allen, The Best Yes: Making Wise Decisions in the Midst of Endless Demands by Lysa TerKeurst.
Younger pastors, having been raised under boomer managerialism, sense this growing tension. While they may not have consciously adopted strategies for addressing it, much of their decision-making matrix is still filtered through reaching this growing customer base. But what if we took what was implicit and made it explicit? What might it look like if churches made these liberal women their target demographic for evangelism? We might call her Saddleback Sarah.
Once a church adopts the framework of evangelizing liberal women, its methodologies become more discernible.
Coded to the liberal woman, the music must become feminized and sensitive towards the biological realities of women. It must be nurturing, inclusive, and supportive. We must distinguish. Of course, the gospel includes those who have repented of their sins and supports the spiritually weak; the church nurtures those who struggle in their pursuit of holiness. But all of these specific applications are muted in favor of aspirational inclusion, support, and nurture. Furthermore, masculine emphases such as strength, courage, and ambition are derided. The church forgets her specific feminine characteristics by castigating her masculine features. Women are naturally more empathetic by God’s design. But when this natural biological reality is subsumed by the liberal mind, it becomes a totalizing reality upon which to make every decision. All decisions are filtered through “How would this make so and so feel,” instead of “Is this true, good, and beautiful.” Empathy becomes the de facto tone and ethos of the church.
Music that would make people feel “other” is seen as bad. Songs that are too difficult to sing are considered “non-inclusive.” Transcendence makes the liberal woman feel small, and the liberal woman has been taught that any feelings of “smallness” are a threat to their very existence. Hospitality, a Christian virtue that should be emphasized, becomes deformed. The focus of hospitality becomes those outside the church who are “poor” and “marginalized,” as defined by the liberal woman.
Furthermore, because it is liberal coded, the worship service itself becomes an opportunity to shatter glass ceilings. The promotion of women is seen as not a fad but a demand of the gospel itself.
The sermons must not be divisive, except towards those whom the liberal woman has deemed “enemy.” Typically, it is found in those who oppose their dreams and desires. These dreams and desires often revolve around “having it all” and also being free of demands. This presents a problem for the liberal woman because she prides herself in not having enemies. She is very tolerant and inclusive. And yet, she cannot help but hate those who oppose her vision of tolerance and inclusivity. They must become enemies. It is acceptable to have enemies so long as the liberal woman gets to define the enemy and make them “other.”
Liberal women are often very anxious and struggle with mental illness, so the sermons emphasize the therapeutic. Rarely is sin talked about (unless it is about the sins of the “enemy”), instead satisfaction of desire and personal fulfillment is the message. The demands of the gospel are traded for the promise of peace and safety offered by Jesus. Again, we must distinguish.
Christians are safe in the arms of Jesus and peace comes from the Prince of Peace. But instead of emphasizing how these realities come to bear on souls through the shed blood of the Son, generic forms of “good vibes” are emphasized. Peace and safety are available to the liberal woman without repentance of sins.
Bad emotions are discouraged because they plague the liberal woman. Guilt and shame are considered “bad” because they “blame” the liberal woman for her problems. For the liberal woman, it is everyone else who is impeding her personal fulfillment that is the problem. This is most often men, both liberal and conservative.
General calls for “unity” and “love” are heralded as the greatest needs of the hour. Any messages that would introduce divisive topics, divisive as defined by the liberal woman, are viewed as “problematic” and “concerning.” This can vary by context. Divisive topics must be treated as threats to the church. This can range from Donald Trump or even voicing a preference that rises above “favorite food” unless it is a preference already liberal woman-coded, such as a preference for Taylor Swift or reading books and sipping lattes.
In the framework of the liberal woman, women do not sin. They are victims because of what others do, mainly men. Because they are victims, they must be treated with the utmost care. It should never be suggested that women sin, that would imply that the liberal woman is not a victim.
It would seem that many evangelical churches fit this description. They have unwittingly postured themselves in order to best reach Saddleback Sarah. These churches must throw off managerialism. While thinking deeply about how to reach people is not unbiblical, adopting worldly techniques to accomplish this often leads one to adopt the mind of the world itself. Rather than relying on seeker-sensitive methods aimed at ‘reaching new customers,’ these churches must return to the biblical truths of sin and salvation. They should boldly proclaim the message of salvation in Jesus Christ, addressing the deep need that liberal women, and all people, truly have—the need for redemption through Him.
Image Credit: Unsplash
