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
On Christmas Eve a nice young man (27) I know reached out in real time. He went to an evangelical mega church with his sister. They meet in an old warehouse complete with a rock band, jumbo boards, strobe lights, and smog machines. The absent pastor later popped up on the jumbo boards to deliver what my young friend thought would be a nativity type sermon. But instead this clergyman preached on “why we can’t hold women accountable for having high body counts”.
Evangelicals have told me this is not an evangelical faith community, but rather its an emergent church (progressive church?). That I don’t know.
I’m turning 67 this coming Sunday. I’m not an evangelical Christian (and am not looking for the unsolicited obligatory sermon rants and exegeting scriptures from the readers), so I view things from an older man’s boots on the ground purview.
Investigating further, this took me into the weeds. I discovered scores of both celebrity and non name evangelical clergy delivering sermons that both excoriated and targeted men (particularly young men), exhorting them to man up and be a servant leader (whatever that even means). But one thing that was very evident was a complete lack of, or a clearly soft ball approach to, calling women (who appeared to be the the lion’s share of the parishioners) to accountability and some type of repentance. Further into the weeds I discovered what appears to be a trend of professing “born again virgin” (again, whatever that means) E-girls who assert a road to Damascus conversion, but continue to engage in a sketchy lifestyle where the result appears to be some type of repentance without renunciation.
My conclusion is that it’s many evangelical Christian clergy who’re complicit in enabling this.
The emerging church as a movement basically ceased to exist about 15 years ago, when it’s de facto leader, Brian McClaren published a book (A New Kind of Christianity) which made it clear that he was not an orthodox Christian. Since then, many of its leading figures have morphed or merged into progressive “Christians”. So the church is probably a progressive church rather than an emergent church.
The born again virgin thing has been around since the 1990s (though I remember hearing it called something like secondary virgin back then), and while I get the point its trying to make, it comes off as a bit silly. We are all sinners and damaged by the fall and our sinfulness and anyone who genuinely repents and receives Christs forgiveness is a new creation in him and should be primarily viewed through that lens. We need to be realistic, though, about the effects of our past choices, not so we can hold them against each other, but so we can deal with the practical effects they have on our relationships.
*it’s
Another ‘old man’ here.
American Reformer, and other Dominionist writers – man and women – appear to idolize ‘real men’. The piece here critiques forms of ecclesiology, Bible study, and theology that disrespect ‘real men’.
As a little boy I would make up ‘psalms’ and sing to God while doing farm work. My grandmother, in her old fashioned bonnet, and cotton dress, with a long sturdy apron, would come out of her house to wave when she heard me singing. Was that being a ‘real man’? or was that too ‘Saddleback Sarah’ or ‘Liberal Lucy’? Can boys and men be simple, humble ones how pray and sing to God?
In school I used a God-endowed gift of reason and intelligence, and a measure of common sensical grounding from working class farm life, to read and study and do very well, and continue with scholarship and loans to complete a good education. What that not being a ‘real man’? That education included continuing a faithful Christian journey ‘in this strange land’ – moving through friendships and accompaniment to workshop in pentecostal/charismatic assembly, Quaker silent meeting, ‘regular’ Episcopal Church, and Episcopal ‘high church’ sung liturgies, with incense and an icon of the Word of God. What was ‘Silly Saddleback Susan’? Do ‘real men’ examine themselves prayerfully, in Christian formation, to find worship and liturgy and community that aids their Christian journey?
In adult life – a life long in rural working class communities, even as I continued a great education (with some of the most important scholars and teachers in biomedical ethics) – I often stood up to defend the dignity of human persons – e.g. to ensure proper and adequate informed consent in research and care (which included consistently expressing concerns that informed consent with gender dysphoric adolescents was too frequently improper and inadequate, and sometimes observably unethical), e.g to defend the human dignity of patients others dehumanized, with patients with HIV/AIDS, with poor or working class patients (as often rural, poorly literate/illiterate, patients are too often treated), with Black patients, and others. Was that ‘unmanly’, or ‘Liberal Lucy’?
People noticed my commitment. Some found it annoying: getting in the way of what – medically, or politically, or organizationally – that they wanted to do regardless. Was that being a ‘Girlie Gidget’?
Sometimes organized Moral Majority and other ‘Religious Right’ activists/ideologues – who demanded patriarchalism, a veiled eugenical racism (that Black people were observably inferior and ought not to be leaders), and other forms of social control (usually for personal gain, veiled as ‘growing the church’s power’) – were angry. Sometimes they sent abusive mail (the paper kind, since this was a pre-digital period). Sometimes their allies in idolatry against Yahweh, and blasphemy against Jesus of Nazareth’ teaching – the KKK and other overtly racist organizations – sent me anonymous packages. Were they ‘manly’ for exerting or trying to exert power and control over my speech?
So, you see, from so many decades of experience I find this comment not only logically flawed, and poorly analytical, but also wickedly contrary to God’s Word:
“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. … 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.”
I do not consider myself ‘liberal’ other than I strongly support the Constitutional order defined by the American Founders (I am particularly fond of Jefferson’s First Inaugural, Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, etc.). Constitutional frameworks are not organized around ‘sin’ or ‘care’; rather the social construction of respect and protection of majority rule of law THAT DEMANDS respect and protection for all minorities by the majority within a rule of law.
The society in which we live should inform our reflection of church social order. Gospel writers REFLECT the conflictual relationships with different Jewish authorities! DUH! Apostle Paul’s writings REFLECT social conditions and political circumstances of PARTICULAR house churches meeting in ‘the Way’. DUH! So, 21st century American congregations may LOGICALLY, and THEO-LOGICALLY, be concerned that
– high proportions in many communities have endured trauma (sexual trauma, other violence …)
– high proportions in almost all communities have lived in or live in families with alcohol or other abuse, serious mental illness, …)
– high proportions in some communities endure significant financial distress
– high proportion in almost all communities live with aged, chronic illness and other conditions of impairment, infirmity, disability, …
TO THE EXTENT that the writer appeals to IGNORANCE about, or NON-CONCERN about these conditions, where they live, where they plant or serve a congregation/parish/community the argument ABANDONS both lived social reality and the imperative and purposed of God’s Good News. Incarnation of the Living Word of God means God lived/remains with us here in our real humanity, not in abstract theological formulations ( as we see some of Jesus’ critics, Pharisees, etc, preferred) or in ‘Woke Right manosphere’ ideologies ( that looks importantly like pagan Roman frameworks of social control).
But I do agree with the writer that ‘WE DO NEED’ the redemption available and confirmed through God’s grace, perfected in humble service and Spirit inspired (not ideology inspired, or politics inflected) teaching seen in Jesus of Nazareth.
This guy is as bad as Curt.
You make ABSOLUTELY NO – ZERO – arguments, from the Bible, logic, or direct experience of prayer and indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Very sad.
I’m not interested in arguing with you.
And you are apparently no interested in the Bible.
Can’t wait for Karen to call this article abusive…
Feminism has brainwashed women to believe that in any situation involving a man, the woman is always a VICTIM. Gutless pastors and churches caving into (fear of Man) have enabled this strategy for over a generation now. We need Gideons to overthrow this idol (Judges 6: 25)… Feminism infantilizes women, excluding them from any call to repentance regarding their attitudes or behaviour. Again, churches have enabled this…
And the ‘Woke Right’ idolatry has brainwashing those idolators to believe that any discussion of justice if ‘Woke Left’ … when in fact justice and righteousness are INTENSE, PASSIONATE, PERSISTENT and EVERLASTING concerns of God, revealed in the Bible. AF idolators has SO LITTLE love and interest in the Bible that they don’t know that. SHAME on them. And God’s roaring wrath will come upon them! THAT IS CERTAIN.