This was my final paper for my Evangelicalism course. As it stands, it treads murky waters between a survey of attitudes and a somewhat interesting theory. I wish I had devoted more time to exploring the thesis (which I only just stumbled upon after having written the majority of the essay). I think that how the Internet changes religious authority is an interesting topic, and, were I a more devoted student, could have produced a particularly relevant and insightful essay. As it stands, we have this.
In January of 2012, a book was published that
created a firestorm of controversy amongst American evangelical Christians. The
book Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex,
Friendship, and Life Together[1]
by megachurch pastor Mark Driscoll and his wife, Grace, purported to offer
insights into a “biblical view” of the marriage contract. The book reached the
number one position on the New York Times Best Seller List. Despite its
popularity and explicitly evangelical marketing, the book drew ire from within
the evangelical subculture – with critics denouncing the book as immature,
misogynistic, and backward. The majority of the backlash took place on blogs
and through other online outlets. The Real
Marriage controversy and ensuing online discourse between Complementarians (those
who believe that men and women are inherently different and complement each
other) and Egalitarians (who believe that all are equal and should be treated
as such) reveals how the Internet age has altered the way that authority is
dispersed within the evangelical community.
For most of the history of the movement, Evangelical
attitudes toward marriage have been grounded in the “separate spheres” ideology
of the 19th century. A patriarchal system, separate spheres divided
life into two discrete categories – public and private. Public life -- work,
politics, and law -- was to be kept separate from home life – homemaking,
education, child-rearing, and religion. Through various biological,
psychological, and theological determinants, men occupied the public sphere,
while women occupied the private sphere. Sociologists Sally K. Gallagher and
Christian Smith write:
One
hallmark of traditional evangelical Protestantism has been the adherence to a
neotraditionalism in which women are seen as subordinate to men. This
particular gender ideology focuses on gender differences in family
responsibilities and has its roots in the ideal of separate spheres for women
and men that emerged during the late nineteenth century. Natural, even
God-given essences were argued to be the basis of masculine aggression, worldly
wisdom, and rationality and its complement, feminine submission, purity, piety,
and domesticity – an argument that continues to be presented by a number of
contemporary evangelical writers today.[2]
By
promoting separate spheres as “natural” and “God-given” early evangelicals were
appealing to Weber’s rational-legal authority and traditional authority. Because
male/female differences were “natural” they were therefore true and because
they had been determined by God, the ultimate arbiter of the law, it was
imperative that these spheres be reinforced. This authority would be challenged
in the 1950s and 1960s, as social movements pushed for equality for all people,
including women, and this challenge would necessitate the development of new
forms of authority.
Evangelicals were not
immune to the effects of the civil rights movements of the mid-20th
century. The push for an egalitarian society by the culture at large was
reflected amongst some evangelical groups, particularly evangelical women. In
order to gain support for this position, progressive evangelicals appealed to
the charismatic authority of Jesus of Nazareth. In their article “‘We are not
Doormats’”: The Influence of Feminism on Contemporary Evangelicals in the
United States,” Judith Stacey and Susan Elizabeth Gerard write:
To counter
evangelicals' standard patriarchalist reading of the scriptural foundation for
women's subordination to their husbands, Christian feminists have developed an
ingenious, and perhaps somewhat forced, doctrine of mutual submission. Biblical
feminists argue that the essence of Christ's message and practice was a
radically egalitarian challenge to prevailing patriarchal society, a society so
profoundly patriarchal that Jesus was compelled to couch his subversive and
implicitly feminist teachings in terms comprehensible and tolerable to his
compatriots. When read in this context, those troubling passages in the bible
that direct wives to submit to their husbands, such as Paul's notorious message
to the Ephesians, can be understood to mean instead mutual submission.”[3][4]
Gerard and Stacey go on to explain the
influence that evangelical feminists have had on evangelical culture as a
whole, claiming the impact of feminism on evangelical discourse is “profound
and diffuse.” They cite the increasing number of male theologians who teach
feminist ideas, evangelical support of the Equal Rights Amendment, and a survey
that revealed that students at evangelical colleges supported both conservative
and progressive views of marital roles.
As elements of egalitarianism
crept into the evangelical discourse in the 1980s, a vocal segment formed that recognized
the success that egalitarians were having, and openly fought against an
egalitarian evangelicalism. Young (at the time) pastors and theologians like, Al
Mohler, John Piper, and Wayne Grudem banded together in an attempt to rebuff
what they viewed as the insidious encroachment of egalitarian thought.
These and other
like-minded men founded the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, an
organization explicitly devoted to promoting a complementarian view of sex and
gender roles. One of the five goals of the CBMW is, “To act as a key player
in stopping what was in 1985 a floodtide of evangelical feminism sweeping
through the evangelical world almost completely unchallenged. (But even though
it is no longer a flood, there is still a steady stream of egalitarianism
flowing through the evangelical world, and it continues to harm marriages and
the church.)”[5] In an
article explaining the origins of and motivations for the founding of the
group, Grudem attacks egalitarian interpretations of Ephesians 5, the idea of a
gender-neutral (in regards to the deity) bible, and the influence of
evangelical feminism.
The CBMW eventually codified their beliefs into the
Danvers Statement, published in 1988. The Danvers Statement articulates the
need for the CBMW to exist and serves as an overview of the core beliefs of the
movement. The statement is divided into two sections, a “rationale” and
“affirmations.” The rationale section highlights ten contemporary developments,
which CBMW observes with deep concern. These developments include:
…the
widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary
differences between masculinity and femininity; the increasing promotion given
to feminist egalitarianism with accompanying distortions or neglect of the glad
harmony portrayed in Scripture between the loving, humble leadership of
redeemed husbands and the intelligent willing support of the leadership by
redeemed wives; and the widespread ambivalence regarding motherhood, vocational
homemaking, and the many ministries historically performed by women…[6]
The affirmations section goes on to
attack these observations by building a patriarchal hermeneutic through textual
references.
While
there is no way to quantify the influence that the Danvers Statement has had on
evangelicalism, the influence of Grudem, Piper, and Mohler is more easily seen.
Grudem’s works of systematic theology are routinely prescribed at evangelical
colleges, Piper is a best-selling author and hugely influential pastor, and
Mohler is the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The rise
in the popularity and influence of these men seems to reflect the overall rise
of the Religious Right in the United States.
Despite being damaged
by the legacy of the Danvers Statement and the conservative takeover of
evangelicalism, the egalitarian movement still exists. There remain well-known
thinkers like NT Wright, Frank and Evelyn Stagg, and William J Webb who carry
the torch for marital equality, using many of the same arguments that were
developed by feminists in the 1980s.
As experts debated complementarianism
and egalitarianism via pulpits and periodicals, new technologies allowed the
laity to lend their own perspectives to the pulpit. Through the Internet,
everyday evangelicals were spreading their own gospel. Websites, podcasts,
Twitter feeds, and YouTube channels sprung up, giving voice to those who were
previously restricted to hashing out theological quandaries with those in their
immediate surroundings. It also gave an even larger platform to superstar
pastors. In addition to preaching to congregations of 5,000+, the most popular
pastors have the ability to preach to an unlimited number of people through
online networks.
Enter
Mark Driscoll. Driscoll is the pastor at Mars Hill Church in Seattle and
founder of the Acts 29 Network, an evangelical ministry dedicated to church planting.
The Mars Hill Church podcast is the third most downloaded Christian podcast on
iTunes.[7] While
Driscoll is heavily influenced by the thought of Mohler, Piper, and Grudem (he
often appears with Piper at evangelical events), he does not present himself in
the same way as these men. Instead, he has cultivated a populist image and a
specific vision of Christianity. Driscoll’s is a hyper-masculine brand of
Christianity, one that emphasizes male leadership and “proper” male behavior,
said to include hunting, fighting, and having sex. His masculinized
Christianity has been wildly popular, and Driscoll is one of the most
influential young pastors in the nation whom wields a level of charismatic
authority beyond the scope of even the most industrious itinerant preachers of
the Great Awakenings.
It stands to reason
then, that a book authored by Driscoll, discussing marriage and gender roles,
would be widely read and hotly debated amongst evangelicals. Like Driscoll
himself, Real Marriage presents
itself as an alternative to a wishy-washy vision of Christianity. In many ways,
it is, but largely superficially, and largely in relation to sex. The Driscolls
write candidly about the passion or lack-thereof in their sex life,
pornography, and the use of erotic devices in the bedroom, but the fundamental
theology is no different than that of the CBMW. In a chapter entitled “The
Respectful Wife,” Grace writes, “Men and women were created with equal worth
but different roles. God created and called the man to lead and love his wife,
and when he doesn’t do that in a holy way, he is sinning. God created the woman
to help and respect her husband, and when she doesn’t do that in a holy way,
she is sinning.”[8]
Throughout the book, both Grace and Mark espouse similar complementarian
sentiments.
Because of Driscoll’s
stature in the evangelical community, the book engendered an enormous online
response from Christians of all types, be they conservative, progressive, or
moderate.
Rachel Held Evans, a
feminist blogger and author of Evolving
in Money Town and A Year of Biblical
Womanhood, wrote:
As
others have noted, the book focuses so much on sex that it can create the
impression that it’s the most important element of marriage. Also, as
I’ve noticed before, Mark has the
tendency to project. Because his wife was abused in the past, he
believes that the majority of women were abused in the past. Because he and
Grace struggled with their sexual relationship, he believes that most couples
struggle with their sexual relationship. Because he likes sports and hunting,
he assumes that “real men” like sports and hunting. Because his marriage is
based on a hierarchal pattern of submission, he believes that “real marriage”
is based on a hierarchal pattern of submission.[9]
Evans criticisms of the book
focused on the complementarian bent, while she wrote that she found the graphic
sexual content excessive, she did not condemn it in principle. Evans’ review
engendered 526 comments from readers, most of them agreeing with her criticisms
of the book. The most “liked” comment was from a reader who claimed that a passage
of the book, in which Driscoll condemns his wife rather harshly for cheating on
him prior to their marriage, “made her want to puke.” The majority of the
conversation fixated on this passage and whether or not Driscoll was being
petty or manipulative.
On
the other side of the aisle, Denny Burk blogger and associate professor at
Boyce College (a subsidiary of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), praised the
book for its complementarian stance, but spends a good third of his review
expressing reservations about the graphic descriptions of sexuality:
First, the
book is unashamedly complementarian. Mark’s challenge to men in chapter 3 is
one of the strongest exhortations to biblical manhood that I have ever read…
The Driscolls argue that the only way to experience marriage to its fullest is
to embrace manhood and womanhood as the Bible defines it and to live out the
roles that are prescribed in scripture. This is all to be commended… Among the
activities that the authors deem permissible within this taxonomy are
masturbation, fellatio/cunnilingus, sodomy (on both spouses), menstrual sex,
role-playing, sex toys, birth control, cosmetic surgery, cybersex, and sexual
medication. The Driscolls are careful to stipulate that these are activities
spouses may participate in by mutual agreement, but not that they must
participate in (p. 180). No spouse should be manipulated into doing anything
that violates his or her conscience (p. 178). The only item in the list deemed
impermissible in every circumstance is sexual assault…I think chapter 10 has the potential to wreak havoc in such marriages
where one spouse will feel a whole range of taboos to be “permissible” if he
can convince his spouse to participate. This to me seems like a recipe for
marital disaster, and I do not think the Driscolls’ requirement of
“helpfulness” mitigates the difficulty.[10]
Burk’s review received 173 comments, the
majority of which agreed with his sentiment. Driscoll is praised for his
“gospel-centrality” but condemned for his focus on sex. Many of the commenters
were so offended by the chapter on sexuality that they disregard the work as a
whole, despite its complementarian worldview.
Lastly,
David Moore, a blogger at Fuller Theological Seminary’s “The Burner” blog, and
a self-identified complementarian also took issue with the book:
This book has an
astoundingly unbelievable disrespect for women. I’m not much of a feminist. Men and women are different, generally have
different gifts and abilities and both are valuable. In our household, I’m the
chief decision-maker because my wife and I agree that is what the New Testament
instructs. Plenty of people don’t agree with that, and that’s fine.[11]
Moore occupies
a middle ground between Evans and Burk. While he fixates on the sexuality of
the book, he does so because he finds it degrading to women, rather than its
graphic nature. He writes, “This might be a new low for Christian marriage books. Is there more to
marriage that male sexual satisfaction?” Likewise, Moore’s commenters are more
split. The majority agrees with his determination that the Driscolls’s book is
sexist, but some defend the work, claiming that it is “real and honest.” Moore
engages with his commenters and confesses that he has a personal distaste for
Driscoll.
I believe that this online discourse
over Real Marriage reveals just how significantly the Internet has
changed the way that evangelicals interact with authority and in many ways, this
newfound liberty is a reflection of the evangelical ideal type. Evangelicalism
is founded on a personal, experiential piety, where the individual is the
ultimate arbiter of orthopraxy and orthodoxy. Despite this, limited resources
for communication have vested authority, even within the evangelical
subculture, in the institution. Evangelicals were largely bound to the
teachings of their local pastor, and theological debates took place between
experts, at conferences and in books and articles. The Internet erodes that
institutional authority, and, in the case of Mark Driscoll, it simultaneously
grants and erodes charismatic authority. Driscoll is able to reach many more
sympathetic ears than he normally would, but he is also subject to the scorn of
critics, who would otherwise have no means of hearing the weekly sermons of a
pastor in the Pacific Northwest.
It is this universal ability to
render judgment that makes the Internet uniquely suited to American
evangelicalism. Any individual evangelical can have a blog, or comment on a
blog, and any individual evangelical’s opinion is just as valid as any other’s.
It is the public expression of Paul’s exhortation that one “work out their
salvation with fear and trembling.”[12]
Using the Internet to attack institutional power structures is both a public
and a personal act. It allows evangelicals to be Smith’s “engaged orthodoxy”
while simultaneously being utterly autonomous. By giving any evangelical the
ability to fully express his or her dualistic nature, the Internet distills the
movement down into its purest form -- a movement of the engaged individual.
[1] Driscoll,
Mark, and Grace Driscoll, Real Marriage: The Truth about Sex, Friendship
& Life Together (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012).
[2] Gallagher,
Sally K., and Christian Smith. "Symbolic Traditionalism and Pragmatic
Egalitarianism: Contemporary Evangelicals, Families, and Gender." Gender
and Society 13.2 (1999): 212-13.
[3] Stacey,
Judith, and Susan E. Gerard, ""We Are Not Doormats": The Influence
of Feminism on Contemporary Evangelicals in the United States." Uncertain
Terms: Negotiating Gender in American Culture Ed. Faye D. Ginsburg and Anna
Lowenhaupt. Tsing. (Boston: Beacon, 1990).
[4] The passage in question is
Ephesians 5:22 in which the author (Paul’s authorship of Ephesians is disputed
amongst scholars) writes, “Wives be subject to your husbands as you are to the
Lord.” NRSV
[5] Grudem,
Wayne. "Personal Reflections on the History of CBMW and the State of the
Gender Debate." The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
<http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-14-No-1/Personal-Reflections-on-the-History-of-CBMW-and-the-State-of-the-Gender-Debate>.
[6] "The
Danvers Statement." The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
<http://www.CBMW.org/Danvers>.
[7] iTunes.
Computer software. Vers. 10.53. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.
[8] Real Marriage 66.
[9] Evans,
Rachel H. "Driscoll, “Real Marriage,” and Why Being a Pastor Doesn’t
Automatically Make You a Sex Therapist." Rachel Held Evans.com.
<http://rachelheldevans.com/mark-driscoll-real-marriage>.
[10] Burk, Denny.
"My Review of Mark Driscoll's "Real Marriage"" Denny
Burk.com.
<http://www.dennyburk.com/my-review-of-mark-driscolls-real-marriage/>.
[11] Moore,
David. "(It Seems) Mark Driscoll Thinks Wives Are Only Good for Sex.” The
Burner Blog.
<http://theburnerblog.com/arts/books/mark-driscoll-thinks-wives-are-only-good-for-sex/>.
[12] Phil 2:12. NRSV
