The truth is there has been a profound shift within
Evangelical culture. In the 1970's there was still enough of the old
Fundamentalism at work in how people viewed the family so that those who broke
with the old order did so not so much out of ideological commitment but due to
pragmatics and questions of financial stress. They weren't fans of Stanton,
Anthony or Steinem but were people (in many cases) trying to hold on to the
Middle Class lifestyle. This continued into the 1980's but more embraced the
new model because lifestyles were changing and in many parts of the country
housing prices were making it very difficult to live on one income.
Then the 1990's happened – the decade of decadence and debt.
A new over-the-top lifestyle emerged and with it came a new theology – a
theology of empowerment and prosperity. It affected all Evangelical circles,
not just the sphere of tacky Charismatic televangelists. Christian career women
started to become the norm but there were still tensions. The Culture War of
the period drove many to reconsider what had been happening and there were
certainly groups reacting to it – but for many a new theology was emerging that
not only sanctioned the new feminism, it theologised it and embraced it.
These issues came to a head in 2008 with the candidacy of
Sarah Palin. In my mind that was a watershed. There was a debate in Christian
circles over the propriety of a woman being in leadership. In the 1970's it
wouldn't have been tolerated and people would have understood why it was wrong
– even in a Dominionist framework that would certainly encourage Christians to
seek roles of political leadership and cultural influence.
And yet by 2008, that older mainstream conservative position was
reckoned extremist – and no doubt other factions and movements had emerged in
the interim that were flirting with the extreme. Groups like Quiverfull and the
Patriarchy movement had emerged in the 1980's and 1990's as a kind of reaction
to the feminism at work in the Church and the culture and while they were in
some respects better than the mainstream pro-feminist ideology – they had their
own problems, often rooted in their more extreme conceptions of Dominion
Theology. This led some of them to make family issues into veritable gospel
issues – questions of one's basic orthodoxy. To revisit a point I've made about
them elsewhere – their cultural moves which some take to be separatist in
orientation are in fact mere tactical maneuvers in preparation for the conquest
of culture which is the end goal. They are not separatists in any way. And thus
in preparation they're breeding their army of culture warriors (literally) and
preparing for their moment. But these groups represent a small minority within
the larger spectrum.
By 2008, the idea that a Christian woman would abandon the
home, essentially abandon her children, that her milquetoast submissive husband
would stand at her side while she spoke, led and forcefully asserted herself
before screaming masses was vigorously embraced – an idea unthinkable a
generation earlier – a sight that would have been viewed with repugnance. In
2008 it was clear, the feminists had won. Anyone who opposed Palin's candidacy
on anti-feminist grounds was marginalised – reckoned a kook, fanatic or
extremist.
The 1990's represented a radical shift in values. Feminism
was embraced, utilitarian market ethics were sanctified, rank materialist
decadence was not only tolerated but encouraged and the ecumenical movement
began to take over. Not the ecumenical movement based on the watered-down
theology of Theological Liberalism but an Evangelical ecumenism rooted in
Dominion theology.
By 2008 the feminist debate was over. By 2012, the ecumenical
ethos had won the day as Evangelicals embraced an Opus Dei-style Roman Catholic
candidate for president. And the cycle of decadence and downgrade was complete
by 2016 when these same circles embraced Donald Trump. These issues are
certainly all related and therefore it's ironic to me that Stonestreet would
try to posit himself as an anti-feminist. He's anything but and further, his
mentor Charles Colson played a significant role in that 1990's shift.
The feminists won and today it's no longer an issue. Women
work outside the home, wives work, mothers work, pastor's wives work – a thing
almost inconceivable a generation ago.
And while Stonestreet celebrates this – there's an even
greater irony. Unlike him I am not invested in the culture. America is just
another Beast that will fall and deservedly so. But I do pray for the peace of
the city, not because it's righteous but because I know that social decay plays
out in all sectors and the Church which should be insulated and distinct, often
is not – thanks again to the likes of poisoners and teachers of worldly
compromise such as Stonestreet.
But what has feminism produced in the cultural sphere? We see
the results everywhere. In addition to the proliferation of sodomy we see in
general terms the feminisation of men – men today even talk and act differently
– our culture used to laugh at 'sensitive' men like Alan Alda. Watching him on
MASH, he seems like a 'manly man' compared to the average soft talking man in
our day. The Church is hardly exempt from this trajectory and tendency that
seeks to enshrine androgyny and in many cases rank female superiority. I hear
it when listening to many radio preachers and I sure hear it in the Christian music.
Apparently the effeminate man is the ideal worship leader. There is a wave of
change on the horizon and many theological conservatives (who are in reality
weak conservatives at best) are going to be in for shock.*
Feminism has contributed to the collapse of small town and
neighbourhood culture. The backbone of the schools (for what it's worth) was
the mothers. They made the community events happen – the events that barely
happen today as no one has the time. The collapse is pervasive and evident and
yet few seem to be able to figure out what has happened – what's missing?
While I cannot endorse the pastoral system per se, in the
Church it was the pastor's wife that was the backbone of the social life.
Though not ordained or in a role of leadership, her helpmeet role was crucial
in assisting the pastor in ministering to the Church, to have that open home –
available at all hours- to the congregation, to be there during all the events
and to help corral and yes, shepherd the other women. But nowadays these wives
often work and congregational life suffers. I've also noticed more and more
pastors want to spend their evenings with their wives whom they haven't seen
all day – that old 'pastor' lifestyle has disappeared and as a consequence
there's a reticence to get out and meet the congregation in the evenings – when
people are actually home and families are together. In other words the pastors
want a 9-5 job rather than the older model which meant long undefined hours
coupled with long hours of rest and domestic tranquility – including abundant
time with your wife. She was home, you lived your lives together and gave your
lives to the congregation. That model is rapidly disappearing and as a
consequence pastor's lives are being torn apart or in other cases they are
negligent. Either way, congregational life suffers as a result.
The old model has been nearly destroyed and it has only been
exacerbated by the endless embrace of 'professional' roles and para-church
structures that compete with and in some cases override the domain of the
Church. In many congregations if you have a problem you don't meet with the
pastor, he's certainly not in your home in the evenings – no, you go and see a
so-called professional Christian counselor. Feminism has directly and
indirectly played a role in all these very sad realities.
Stonestreet never questions whether Christian women should work.
Christian has nothing to do with it. It's only the culture that matters. Either
all women in the culture (Church included) should stay home or all should work.
Dominion and cultural influence are all he cares about. The idea that we as the
Church have other pursuits and ways of thinking that will place us in direct
contradiction to the culture seems a foreign if forbidden prospect.
His ethics are consequentialist, his theology heresy, his Christianity
bankrupt and doomed to become just like the world he wants to change. That's
the greatest and most tragic irony of all.
------
*And in terms of the question of superiority – that's part of
the narrative shift. It used to be that feminism was arguing for 50-50
equality. That was opposed by Biblically minded Christians. Today's feminism
actually argues for female superiority and male submission. Because some
Christians oppose this while nevertheless embracing the 50-50 ideology of the
previously generation – they think they're anti-feminists.
See also: