An analysis of W. Bradford Wilcox’s Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
In the wake of the crisis of abuse at the Southern Baptist Convention, a question arises: is there a vital link between conservative theological beliefs about gender and family and the environments that promote and tolerate abuse?
- Looks like an increasing number of people would say “yes.
- “For example.
- A recent study that drew attention to Christianity Today argued that Calvinist beliefs perpetuate “myths of domestic violence” because of their correlation with “binary gender views.
- “Lower levels of acceptance of social justice theory.
- And emphasis on hierarchical relationships.
- But conservative Christianity is not the only goal.
- In 2017 and 2018.
- The Australian Broadcasting Company published a series of detailed articles highlighting domestic violence and abuse within Australia’s evangelical.
- Catholic.
- Muslim.
- Jewish and Hindu communities.
- Which is not necessarily something new.
- Following the adoption of protocol BFM2000 by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1998.
- Including the Declaration on Male Leadership.
- Two leading journalists argued that this type of rhetoric “can clearly lead to abuse.
- Both physical and emotional.
- “.
At this stage, it is useful to use specific data and facts. In 2004, sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia published a monumental study entitled “Sweet Patriarchs, New Men: How Does Christianity Influence Parents and Husbands?(University of Chicago Press, 2004). Based on the most comprehensive and respectable datasets available at the time (the National Survey of Families and Aggregates and the General Social Survey), it compares the beliefs of average Protestant and conservative men about marriage, sex, and then examines the effects of these beliefs on a wide variety of behaviors, including emotional attention, parenthood, and violence. The usefulness of this study for the discussion of complementarity and abuse is that, unlike Wilcox’s most recent study, it is the only one that takes into account the distinctive effect of the church’s participation in conservative Protestants. [I]
Its conclusion and results are significant. Indeed, far from being a corollary of abuse, Wilcox discovers that when combined with church attendance, theologically conservative views on marriage and gender are actually correlated with lower rates of domestic violence.
In the words of Wilcox
“Contrary to what feminists, many family experts and public critics claim, [conservative Protestant men who go to church] cannot be properly described as “abusive,” heads of family and ‘authoritarians’, married under the influence of ‘stereotyped forms of masculinity’. Do they outperd the average Protestant family in their practical and emotional devotion to their children and wives?and are the least likely to physically abuse their wives. (199-200).
In fact, regardless of the metric, conservative Protestant men who attend church out outperigh any other segment of the American population in the same areas where their detractors suspect they are mistaken. Wilcox discovered that conservative Protestant men who attend church spend more time with their children; they are more inclined to embrace and praise their children. their wives claim to be more satisfied with the admiration, affection and understanding they receive from their husbands; and do they spend more time socializing with their wives?(206?207).
Again: “Are these men systematically the most active and emotionally involved parent group and the most emotionally involved group of husbands, as this study shows?”(191).
Indeed, the irony That Wilcox repeatedly comments is that conservative Protestants, with “old-fashioned views” on gender and family, are approaching the new liberalism of the “ideal man”: kind, affectionate, educator, sensitive and kind. Wilcox, “Do these men take an approach to family life that is surprisingly similar to that of the new man, the ideal of active and emotionally expressive family involvement, celebrated in society at large?(191). Continues:
Compared to the average of their non-members in this group, conservative Protestant married men with children are systematically the most active and expressive parents and the most emotionally engaged husbands (195).
More importantly, when it comes to domestic violence, Wilcox launches this bomb:
“We have also seen that, contrary to the predictions of their critics, conservative Protestant men who attend church have the lowest rates of domestic violence than any group in this study. In fact, men in the conservative Protestant family who attend church have the lowest rates of domestic violence among any major religious group in the United States (207).
The importance of this discovery is impressive. In fact, men who have the most “old-fashioned” opinions about sex and family actually do the best job of taking care of their spouse. They are by far the least likely to abuse their wives. secular and less religious men, enjoying their wives (207).
Therefore, far from correlated with negative behaviors and results, “Is a conservative Protestant affiliation, especially an active affiliation, associated with virtually all behavioral results analyzed in this study?”(197). The average Protestant with more “liberal” opinions about family and sex is lower. Non-religious and non-religious men also have a lower rank.
However, there is another important aspect. While conservative Protestant men who go to church have the lowest rates of domestic violence, is it true that the opposite is true of nominal conservative Protestant men?That is, men who identify themselves as “conservative protesters” but who do not attend church. Writes:
“Compared to other men in this study, [nominal conservative Protestant men] are not seriously involved in the emotional and practical lives of their families, have fewer domestic activities, and are more likely to physically abuse their wives (200).
Again, while “conservative Protestant practitioners consistently have the highest levels of practical and emotional participation in parenthood and marriage,” it turns out that “men in the nominal conservative Protestant family are not very different from their counterparts. and emotional investment in family life, are not responsible disciples, invest less effort in domestic work and have the highest levels of domestic violence than any other group in this study. ? (195).
Here’s the bottom line: conservative Protestant men who go to church are the best at caring for their families, and nominal conservative Protestants are worse at caring for their wives and families. The average non-religious Protestant man is somewhere in the middle of this statistic. .
Behind this is another surprising truth: conservative opinions about marriage and family alone are not enough to create healthy families and marriages. The participation of the Church and members makes a big difference.
Figure: Maris (protesters) who commit domestic violence. Source: NSFH2 (1992-1994)
Wilcox calls this “one of the most impressive discoveries in this study?”(202). In his words:
“Do parents of nominally conservative Protestant families seem singularly distant from family life?Especially compared to his conservative Protestant brethren practitioners. If my findings on domestic violence are an indication, are these reactionary men and their partners probably following the typical path of family behavior?divorce, marital problems, neglect of children, which conservative Protestants consider toxic fruits of family modernization (202).
Indeed, the difference in behavior between nominal conservative Protestant men and conservative Protestant men who go to church is so great that Wilcox assumes that the distinctly bad marital behavior of nominal conservative Protestant men may explain the fact that some studies show that Protestant conservatives divorce in a rate higher than that of the general population?(198). In one sentence, nominal evangelicals give a bad picture of the rest of the evangelicals.
Wilcox even points out that this? The divergence between belief and practice is true for conservative Protestants in a way that is not true for the average Protestant. Statistically speaking 😕 The relationship between average Protestant beliefs and behaviors and the average family and gender ideologies of institutions in general is closer to the continuum, while the relationship between conservative Protestant beliefs and behaviors and family ideologies and the gender of conservative Protestant institutions is further from the continuum. (194). In other words, if, for the average Protestant man, church attendance has little or no effect on his behavior, this makes a big difference for conservative Protestant men.
In conclusion, this study bridges the gap between two seemingly contradictory intuitions: on the one hand, as evangelicals, we firmly believe, and many of us have personally experienced it, that complementarity is biblical and good; on the other hand, many share their story of a complementary theology that coexists and may even facilitate abuse. This study gives both sets of intuitions their rightful place, recognizing the inherent goodness of complementarity when practiced by a regenerated heart, as well as their ability to distort when it is co-opted only those who are nominal evangelicals.
[i] Some criticized Wilcox’s study for focusing solely on physical violence and neglecting other forms of violence, such as sexual, emotional, psychological, social, financial, and spiritual violence. Others warned against overconfidence in this study, as the underlying data go back to However, the Wilcox study is not an anomaly between social science research on religion and abuse, but reflects a broader trend in research that more religious men are less likely to perpetuate abuse and interpersonal violence.