Theology of Reaction

Lately I have been thinking about a recurring pattern I see in some contemporary evangelical critique. It has shown up in books (that I will discuss below), social media, and personal conversations that I have had in the church. The pattern usually begins with something true and important such as real harm has been done by someone in the church. It can be abuses of authority, historical failures within the church, or the misuse of biblical language. This in turn caused very real pain to people.

I don’t think those things should be minimized! Christians should always be willing to tell the truth about sin. And this is never more true when that sin has been covered with spiritual language.

However, there is another danger that I am worrying is spreading by way of this pattern of conversation and literature. A legitimate critique of abuse becomes a critique of the doctrine itself. The argument will move from “this teaching has been misused” to “this teaching is inherently harmful.” That is a move that is deeply concerning to me.

I originally started this writing as a bit of a book review of She Deserves Better by Sheila Gregoire. And then I spread out to interacting with Jesus and John Wayne by Kristin Kobes Du Mez. But eventually I realized that although I have very real issues on the substance in these books, that a greater concern for me is method. Both books raise issues worth taking seriously and both books identify real problems. But they also both use a style of theological reasoning that I think can become pastorally dangerous which is reasoning from reaction rather than from careful biblical and theological study.

1. Real Problems Do Not Always Justify the Broadest Diagnosis

I do not think either book is reacting to nothing. There have been serious failures within evangelicalism: abuse, coverups, celebrity pastor culture, politicized faith, and real harm done to women and girls. Those things should not be dismissed or explained away.

The problem is the move from:

“This teaching or culture has been abused.”

to:

“Therefore the doctrine, structure, or tradition itself is inherently abusive or corrupt.”

I think that is too extreme of a move.

In Jesus and John Wayne, Du Mez argues that white evangelicalism has been deeply shaped by a kind of militant masculinity. One of her central claims is that Donald Trump was not a betrayal of evangelical values but, in some sense, their culmination. Her argument is that their political behavior revealed what their values actually were instead of a compromise of their values.

I understand the critique to a point. Evangelicals have absolutely been shaped by American culture. I do not want to deny that. But I think the book often blurs the distinction between biblical Christianity and cultural distortions that were attached to Christianity.

A similar concern applies to She Deserves Better. The book raises legitimate concerns about how girls have sometimes been taught about sex, modesty, authority, dating, and speaking up. Some of those concerns are worth serious reflection. Many churches probably should ask whether their teaching has unintentionally placed burdens on girls that Scripture itself does not place on them.

But again, there is a difference between a biblical teaching and a distorted or abusive version of that teaching.

For example, suppose a church teaches mutual love, sacrifice, and submission in marriage while also holding to male headship. Then suppose a husband uses “headship” as an excuse to dominate, belittle, control, or abuse his wife. That man is not faithfully practicing the doctrine. He is either misunderstanding it or intentionally weaponizing it. That is evil. But it does not automatically prove that the doctrine itself caused the abuse.

A misunderstanding or misuse of a teaching is not, by itself, an indictment of the teaching. Otherwise, nearly every Christian doctrine could be rejected on the grounds that someone has abused it.

2. The Pastoral Danger: Distrusting Doctrine Instead of Discerning Distortion

This is probably my biggest concern. And really the reason I felt that it needed to be addressed at all.

When people encounter stories of real harm, they often become understandably angry. But if the interpretive framework of a book encourages them to conclude that the harm came from historic Christian teaching itself, rather than from sin, pride, immaturity, worldliness, or abuse of authority, then the book may end up pushing people away from orthodoxy rather than toward reform.

I think there is a huge pastoral difference between saying:

“Some Christians have taught this badly, applied it foolishly, or used it abusively.”

and saying:

“This teaching is inherently harmful.”

The first response calls the church to repentance and greater faithfulness. The second response can easily become deconstruction… When people are taught to reinterpret their wounds as the necessary fruit of orthodox doctrine, it becomes very difficult for them to distinguish Christianity from the people who harmed them.

3. Reaction Is Not the Same Thing as Biblical Reasoning

Both books seem to arrive at many of their conclusions by identifying something harmful and then moving in the opposite direction.

• If authoritarian masculinity is bad, then egalitarianism is assumed to be the safer and more Christian position.
• If purity culture caused shame, then traditional sexual ethics become suspect.
• If conservative evangelicals were influenced by politics and culture, then their theology becomes suspect as merely politics in disguise.

But reaction is not the same thing as biblical reasoning and an outflow from scripture.

Jesus and John Wayne argues that white evangelicals often received their vision of masculinity, leadership, and power more from American culture than from Jesus. I think there is some truth there. But the critique can fail by its own standard. Progressive Christian arguments are also deeply shaped by the current cultural moment, especially on gender, sexuality, race, feminism, identity, authority, and justice.

That does not automatically make progressive arguments wrong. But it does mean they should be examined with the same suspicion they apply to conservative evangelicalism.

It is not enough to say, “Conservatives are culturally conditioned, but my position is justice.”

Everyone is culturally conditioned.

The real question is whether Scripture is governing our conclusions, or whether our conclusions are being governed by reaction against people we distrust.

To be fair, Jesus and John Wayne is primarily a historical argument, not a systematic theology. But once a historical argument begins making theological judgments, it needs theological precision.

4. This Is Not Only a Progressive Problem

I also want to be fair: conservatives do this too.

I think some conservative responses to gender debates have been reactionary as well. For example, the recent SBC conversation around Al Mohler’s “Truth and Unity Ammendment” seemed, to me, to use language about pastoral “function” in a way that was imprecise and potentially overcorrecting. My concern is that some conservatives are reacting to egalitarianism or feminism by tightening categories beyond what Scripture itself requires. (I can think of many other examples as well, but I will spare you the list.)

So I am not trying to say, “Progressives react to culture, while conservatives are always biblical.” I think both sides can do this. The danger is reacting our way into positions instead of studying our way into them.

5. How Should the Church Use Books Like These?

I do not want to say that these books have no value… I think they can help expose real failures. They can force us to ask whether our church culture has been careless, dismissive, overly authoritarian, or blind to the experiences of women and girls. Those are worthwhile questions.

But I am going to be extremely cautious about recommending them without qualification, because I think they often lack the theological guardrails needed to keep readers from drawing overly broad conclusions.

In my mind, the better pastoral posture is something like:

“Yes, there have been real abuses and distortions. Yes, we should listen carefully and repent where needed. But we must also distinguish between biblical doctrine and the sinful misuse of biblical language.”

That distinction seems super important. Otherwise, the church ends up confessing not only its sins, but also apologizing for doctrines it was never wrong to believe! I want us to be honest about evangelical failures without allowing those failures to become an argument against biblical faithfulness itself.