CHAPTER 3: RIGID GENDER AND SEXUALITY
Gender roles and sexist attitudes do not exist in a vacuum, rather in systems that produce and prop up heteronormative patriarchy and hierarchy. Thinking of sex and gender as separate and connected characteristics can be helpful in both practical and research applications. A person’s sex is the multifaceted construct of anatomy, physiology, and hormones that are often known as a person’s primary or secondary sex traits. These traits are often used in research and medical terms as they are helpful in framing medical interventions for people in different types of bodies. Meanwhile gender can be defined as the nuanced construct that accompanies a person’s gender identity and expression, as well as the cultural expectations about status and behaviors that are associated with certain traits. Gender is a socially constructed idea, built by culture and norms (Bates et al., 2022).
Evangelical Gender Roles
It is a common belief in Evangelical Christianity that sex and gender are the same, meaning that those who are born biologically male or female are therefore socially male or female, making sex and gender synonymous. The Gospel Coalition, a prominent Evangelical publication, asserts that “being made in God’s image as male and female is not a matter of one’s own autonomous preferences. Rather, it is a part of God’s beautiful design and plan” (Burk, 2023). This reductive thinking lacks the understanding of the complex ways that society has evolved in thinking about these defining characteristics.
Vision Forum catalogues in the 1990s and early 2000s gave birth to popular publications such as Wild at Heart and Captivating, a couples’ duology on “biblical manhood” and “biblical womanhood.” These quickly gave rise to the polarizing complementarian teachings written in The Gospel Coalition and Desiring God, two prominent Evangelical editorial sites run by a network of pastors whose purpose is to create more Evangelical churches. The viral sticking power of complementarian ideology in the Evangelical church has a long history that has far reaching psychological and social impacts for those who came to maturity under these teachings. As children enter adolescence, their self-perception is very malleable; puberty is a landmark season in the development of how people come to understand all aspects of their identity as they begin to individuate in various ways from the villages that raise us (Blakemore et al., 2010). There is an expectation of feminine passivity that is outlined in countless teachings by prominent Evangelical pastors such as Baptist theologian John Piper (2013), who described a woman’s role as “called by God to receive from man and to honor man and support the leadership and the protection and the provision of godly men appropriately according to their different roles.” Women are consigned to be perpetual helpers, devoid of their own personalities, passions, and ambitions. It is a woman’s highest calling to be selfless, entrusting her desires and wants over to god, and by extension her godly chosen husbands.
Inversely, men are socialized to take more active, dynamic roles. There is an imperative that men are seen as strong, capable leaders. In a collection of essays titled Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, prominent conservative Evangelical pastors came together to provide exegesis on modern gender roles in the Evangelical church. American theologian and pastor Vern Sheridan Poythress explained male headship as a God-ordained, familial role that should be replicated in Church leadership: “Just as husbands and fathers ought to exercise godly leadership in their human families, so wise mature men ought to be appointed as fatherly leaders in the church” (Poythress, 1991). This type of theology, rooted in complementarianism and patriarchal leadership, results in the rigid hierarchies outlined in now commonly-accepted theological diagrams like the IBLP’s Umbrella of Protection, which projects the authority that god has over men, and thus men over their wives and subsequently children as a protective power (IBLP).
This is where patriarchal expectations can be harmful to people of all gender presentations. Evangelical manhood is defined by masculinity steeped in leadership, ruggedness, strength, and grit (Driscoll, 2011). With fantastical descriptions of men being created for adventure and battle while women are created for gentility and care, Evangelical gender roles create niche ideas of how men and women are supposed to behave according to their biological sex (Eldredge, 2010). Deviation from these prescribed behaviors and roles is seen as sinful and wrong. While most modern Evangelical churches do not explicitly relegate women to the home and men to the office or battlefield, the complementarian hierarchy creates a structure in which it is difficult for partners to fully inhabit their individual strengths. Evangelical Christians are encouraged to fit into prescribed roles, such as the bearer of Biblical headship or the nurturing caregiver (Piper, 1991). Women are expected to tend to children and the softer more emotional needs of the family, while men are supposed to provide and protect. However, the experience of humanity is complex and rarely fits into the neat boxes that society sets up. In reality, these inflexible ideas of how a family must be only serve as a cage in which men and women are not allowed to grow or feel empowered in who they are as complex people.
Evangelical (Hetero)Sexuality: Homosexuality is Sinful
In the midst of the rigid expectations about when sexuality is acceptable, it is also important to note that in purity culture there is only one acceptable expression of sexuality. Historically, fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity has had the hardline stance that to be gay is to be sinful (Neumann, 2022). Since the late 1970s, pastors like Jerry Falwell and Franklin Graham have publicly scorned “sodomites” who dare to have sexual desire outside of heterosexual marriage (Bjork-James, 2018). Evangelical rejection of the LGBTQ identity is not rooted in only bigotry or prejudice. Instead, it is tied to the culturally-specific expectations about what Evangelical Christians are allowed to do with their bodies in relation to what god has ordained for them in order to maintain a relationship with divinity. Just as sex outside of marriage is seen as sinful, so is the attitude toward queer sexuality in Evangelicalism, but amplified. Both sex outside of marriage and LGBTQ relationships are seen as barriers to being able to have a good, holy relationship with the Evangelical god. However, there is a more severe cultural response to LGBTQ individuals in this culture as the Evangelical sexual ethic views part of a queer person’s inherent identity as sinful, identifying them as someone who is unable to submit to god’s will (Bjork-James, 2018).
Frequently hearing about how sinful and wrong being queer can be tremendously destabilizing and hurtful for LGBTQ Christians growing up in the Evangelical church or being raised in proximity to doctrine that labels their sexuality as an “abomination” (Barton, 2010). The psychological distress of growing up in a community that views part of their inherent identity as evil can lead to depression, anxiety, suicidality, and isolation. The “spirit-crushing” experiences of being taught that something core to their identity makes them outsiders and abominations is dwarfed by the pain caused by familial rejection. Forced out of the heavenly family in the church, many LGBTQ Christians also face familial ostracization as fundamentalist family members refuse to allow someone who they believe is rebelling against god into their home. For adults, this is devastating and painful. For children, who are inherently more vulnerable, this can result trauma, self-destructive behaviors, depression, homelessness, and feelings of worthlessness (Barton, 2010). Driven by rigid doctrine, some fundamentalist parents of gay children would rather cast their children out into the cold than have an abomination against god under their roofs.
As Evangelicalism is a larger umbrella for dozens of churches and expressions of Christianity, this has resulted in varying responses from Evangelical Christians depending on their personal ethic and beliefs (Bean & Martinez, 2014). Since the 1890s, conversion therapy has been utilized by health care professionals and religious figures to change individuals’ gender identities or sexual orientations. Conversion therapy is a practice grounded in the belief that being LGBTQ is abnormal and therefore something that should be cured or changed. Many Evangelical parents who do not want to disown their LGBTQ children take the option of sending their queer children to conversion therapy. Tactics used in conversion therapy include aversion treatments, providing electric shocks, or pain-induced classical conditioning to try to chase away same-sex desires. Today, many states and localities have banned gay conversion therapy for youth. By 2019, approximately 698,000 LGBTQ adults had received gay conversion therapy in an attempt to cure them of their queerness. Of those 698,000, half of them were subjected to psychological and spiritual practices with the purpose of changing their sexual orientation in their childhood and adolescence (Mallory et al., 2019).
These methods are not without tremendous harm to the queer people who receive this type of practice. The American Psychological Association (APA) reviewed the efficacy of conversion therapy practices and found that there is no evidence to believe that orientation can or should be changed. Rather, the APA found that these conversion therapy practices can do significant harm to LGBTQ people (HRC, 2023). The American Academy of Pediatrics asserted that not only does conversion therapy not work, but it also can be harmful as “therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation” (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1983, pp. 249–250). The potential risks in conversion therapy vastly outweigh any benefits as it has been known to induce depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior, and it can reinforce internalized self-hatred in people who are already being heavily criticized by their religious community for their innate sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 2018).
Evangelical Christianity frames the way they speak to and about LGBTQ people as “an expression of love for same-sex attracted people” because the only way queer individuals can belong in God’s family is if they renounce their sexuality (Bjork-James, 2018). This idea gives birth to the often-quoted statement that “god loves the sinner and hates the sin” (Piper, 2013). By asserting that the fundamentalist Evangelical god loves LGBTQ people and that it is a loving act to help them purge the sin of homosexuality, Evangelicalism is able to simultaneously make an assertion of compassion while also condemning the identities of queer people. Committed to biblical inerrancy and fundamentalist, patriarchal readings of text, Evangelical Christians condemned gay sexual behavior while also extending a conflicting love toward LGBTQ individuals.
The Ex-Gay Movement and Queer Christianity
After years of being told that their sexuality is sinful and an abomination, it is no small wonder that some LGBTQ people who grew up in the Evangelical church would opt to seek to deny their sexual orientations in favor of fitting into their communities. The “ex-gay movement” is a movement within Evangelical Christianity led by believers who are experiencing “unwanted same-sex attraction” (Bjork-James, 2018). The most prominent ex-gay organization, Exodus International, was founded in 1976 as a way for young Christian men to pray their gay away. Over the next several decades, Exodus International exploded into a worldwide network that partnered with the political right to combat what they see as the rising threat of queer Christians in the Evangelical church. In these ex-gay conferences, LGBTQ Christians meet and share stories of how their relationship with god holds them accountable to remain celibate and not act on their physical desires (Bjork-James, 2018).
Queer Christians within the ex-gay movement self-enforce voluntary celibacy on themselves or manage to marry someone of the opposite sex in the name of holiness. In the decades since it began, the ex-gay movement within Christianity has changed as its founders have acknowledged that ultimately, none of their conversion efforts, heterosexual marriages, or celibacy took away their queer feelings and identity (Whitley-Berry & McCammon, 2021). Documentaries such as Netflix’s Pray Away show the exodus of formerly staunch ex-gay advocates as they come to terms with their LGBTQ identities and seek to individuate from systems of harm that do not see them as valid (Netflix, 2021). During this evolution of the ex-gay movement, many queer Christians began to claim space for themselves within their religion. In this change, two factions have emerged. Queer Christians with traditional values, who believe that they are called to celibacy within the church or to marry someone of the opposite sex despite their lack of attraction, call themselves “side B” Christians (Post, 2021). More progressive Christian circles call themselves “side A” Christians as they are affirming of people who are LGBTQ in the church; they believe their identities do not have to be mutually exclusive (Bjork-James, 2018). Fundamentalist Evangelical spaces remain staunchly “side B” that there is no theological support for same-sex relationships while other Christian spaces welcome LGBTQ people into the pews with the “side A” assertion that there is no support for queerness being sinful.
Next Steps
It was the documented impact described in the literature reviewed above that was the impetus for this study. LGBTQ children subjected to dogmatic and rigid teachings that urge them to deny who they are known to have higher rates of depression and suicidality than their non-queer peers as they struggle to see themselves as worthy individuals outside of their religion. It is vital for clinicians to have a better understanding how these teachings and systems could potentially harm varying demographics through cognitive distortions such as black and white thinking and doctrinal teachings that separate people from their bodily autonomy.