Evangelical church culture turning families into cults and pressuring mothers to be perfect
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Evangelical church culture turning families into cults and pressuring mothers to be perfect
...so says the senior editor for Christian Parenting Today magazine, Carla Barnhill, who has just published her book The Myth of the Perfect Mother.
She says as society lost traditional values, the church started focusing on families putting tremendous pressure on mothers to be perfect and have perfect children.
Here is the Dallas Morning News Q&A that appeared today in their religion section. I think this woman is right on target!
"Carla Barnhill is a senior editor for Christian Parenting Today magazine. In her book, The Myth of the Perfect Mother, she offers a bold critique of evangelical church culture, which she says "elevates the family to a position that's out of sync with the gospel."
By viewing motherhood through a results-oriented lens that focuses solely on how children turn out, the church puts tremendous pressure on mothers in particular, Ms. Barnhill says. She admits to a "crabbiness" over how the church's view of motherhood is hurtful to women.
Mrs. Barnhill works from home. She and her husband have two children, with a third due in March. They attend an emergent church, Solomon's Porch, in Minneapolis, that Mrs. Barnhill said is supportive of mothers as women on a spiritual journey. Special Contributor Robin Galiano Russell spoke with her recently.
Question: You've said that you wrote out of your experiences with editing a Christian parenting magazine, and because every mother, on some level, understands Andrea Yates.
Answer: What was interesting to me is she wasn't an abusive mother who went too far. She was just a mom who felt over time that she was failing her children. I've read some of the courtroom transcripts, and she would say, "I wasn't doing it right" or "They'd be better off without me." She didn't start out crazy, but the more she tried, the harder it became for her.
This didn't have to happen if we'd had an atmosphere here we could talk about how hard it is. We've created a culture that says God wants her home with the kids and therefore it must be well there. In her situation, it was toxic.
Question: In evangelical circles, you say there's almost a "cult of the family." What do you mean by that phrase?
Answer: When popular culture began to wheedle away at traditional values, the church began, and rightly so, to try to shore up the family, to give families resources to survive in a culture. The family became more important than anything else, more important than the culture, than the kingdom. We ended up doing what's best for the children rather than thinking about how that impacts the world around us. And the church supports those ideas – pulling kids out of public school, protecting them from watching certain movies.
You end up with the thinking that what happens out there won't affect the family. It's like a cult, which replaces one truth with another. The church has been replacing the truth of the gospel with the family as its primary call. That's not in the Bible.
Question: Given the current evangelical culture, it will likely make some Christians nervous to realize there's no biblical evidence that the family is the most important entity.
Answer: Women understand that. When men think about family life, they look at it from a whole other perspective. They need to be challenged to stay in touch, to get involved. And the church communicates to men. Women will do anything for their kids. Our instinct is to do all we can. So when the Christian culture tells us to do more, we do more.
Women who do get nervous have trained themselves not to listen to their own instincts. We listen to the experts. It's ironic to me that Christian books talk about how hard it is to raise kids – we have to save our children from the godless culture – but there's no understanding what that does to a parent.
In some ways, though, it's a pretty easy way to live. On some levels, it's virtuous. It feels like a good thing to do, to do what's best for your children, to put them in that school, until all my virtuous decisions don't lead to perfect children.
Question: The Bible doesn't mandate certain styles of parenting, yet evangelicals know that they are supposed to spank their children, and that homeschooling is considered the ideal. Where does that come from?
Answer: It came from the perfectionism thing. It's an effort to control our children. There's a lot of fear in evangelical culture, not in evangelical theology, but the culture. Somehow the devil is going to get in if I let my kids read Harry Potter or go to a public school where one of the teachers lives with her boyfriend. It's a faulty logic, that if I do these things it will keep my kids safe. We're not trusting God with our kids, and we're not allowing God to lead others down a slightly different road.
Question: You bring up the point that the whole idea of stay-at-home moms is a relatively new phenomenon.
Answer: It's a pretty modern idea. My grandmother didn't telecommute, but she worked her butt off. That [stay-at-home] woman hasn't existed for most of Christian history. It's a Western industrialized nation ideal. Was God not paying attention until 1954? It's really dismissive of women who work outside the home. In agrarian societies, you work constantly. We have glorified that position.
But if you can't stay at home or feel led into the workplace, that is OK, too. Our God is big enough to care for our families no matter what we do. Both men and women need to be in prayer about that.
Question: Talk about John Locke's philosophy of tabula rasa, and how his concept has influenced evangelical thinking.
Answer: John Locke had the philosophical notion that a child is born into the world as a blank slate. It's all nurture and no nature. So parents have the responsibility to impress on a child's mind the right stuff. So much of Christian literature treats it this way. It was popular in our nation's early history, when mothers were told to imprint on their child the notion of civic duty and democracy.
But child development experts will tell you that a lot is intrinsic. And as Christians, we believe in the unique imprint each person has. I like to think of parents as gardeners. You can't turn a rose into a daisy, but you can help it grow into the flower it was intended to be. My job as a parent is to find out what my son and daughter need.
When you talk about discipline, there are different things that motivate. My daughter needs a lot of talk. My son is different. If we just spanked them, it would do a disservice to both of them.
Question: You call for a new theology of motherhood, that it's not just what we do or are. What is your spiritual take on motherhood?
Answer: I'm encouraging moms in the church to consider motherhood as a spiritual practice. That way, you can let go of how the kids turn out and let God back into parenting. So much of the time I'm either just getting through the day or feel like I just messed up with my kids, instead of thinking, "What is God doing in me right now? What is he teaching me?" Kids need to see that God is still working in me.
Motherhood is just one of the ways God forms us. If you're someone who doesn't have children, it doesn't mean you are not complete. So many of my friends have been wounded by that. They feel out on the fringe. It's as if as soon as you have a baby, then you've won the lottery and you're in. No. Kingdom living is the main thing.
Question: What can churches do differently to encourage mothers?
Answer: Churches need to open up their idea of women's ministry. They think, "Well, we have a Mothers of Preschoolers program so we have a women's ministry." Don't think of it as defined by life stages, but what do our women need for their faith journey?
"Child care will be provided" – those are the magic words. It says you can come, too. Mothers need to be invited to full participation in the church. Ask them to help with something that has nothing to do with being a mom. You are a full person, and God created you and me to be a whole human being. Churches need to support that and not just put us in a life stage group and think they've got the bases covered.
As women, we ourselves need to be able to take off the veneer and say, "You know, today I really don't like my kids." If just one woman said that, others would be talking about it, too. Or if someone admitted to depression. That's why older women are necessary. This resonates with them. They will say: "I remember what it was like. I had five children at home and thought I was going to go crazy."
Getting rid of evangelical veneer of perfection is bigger than just the issue of motherhood. We don't have to have it all figured out. It's OK to have a day where you want to send your kids off to a zoo. It's not all that hard for churches to create that sort of place where it's OK to be myself. Suffering is so much a part of the human condition, our churches need to talk about it, and, of course, offer hope.
By Robin Galiano Russell, a Dallas freelance writer. She can be reached at rrscribe@excite.com.
While I do agree with some points of this article, I do have to question what kind of evangelical churches this woman is targeting. I think her whole label of "evangelical churches" as a whole is quite wrong. I have been in 3 different evangelical churches (S. Baptist) since I became a mom and these situations have not been the case for me at all. I'll post more this evening when I have more time.
Okay, back with a little more time. First of all, an emergent church IS an evangelical church, so why is she saying that her church is supportive of mothers as women, but *other* evangelical churches aren't? Also, I think that in this instance (as is frequently the case), "evangelical" is being confused with "fundemental" when in fact that are 2 entirely different things. Merriam-Webster defines evangelical as "emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual." I would whole-heartedly agree with that defintion and in doing so I would say that it defines 90% of protestant denominations. A secondary definition of Evangelical (with a capital E) is fundamentalist, which is defined as "a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles." I am an evangelical Christian, but I am NOT a fundamentalist. Many (not all) fundamentalist churches are charasmatic in nature and among these type of churches would be the congregations that expect women to wear no make-up, have long hair, and wear skirts at all times.
I was not raised in church and starting seeking out church/spiritual things when in middle school. I became a Christian at 12 years of age and had been the only Christian in my family (until me brother last year  ) since that time. In my 25 yrs of active church involvement in both United Methodist and Southern Baptist congregations I have NEVER heard women encouraged to spank their children (I actually find that it is more cultural---occurs more in the South) nor have I ever been expected to be a Stepford wife/mom. As a minister's wife the stakes can sometimes be a little higher (i.e., many people expect a minister's family to be perfect), but I have never felt that pressure either. I was a SAHM for a few years b/c I chose to be home with my children, but I saw a couple of clients on the side and did some freelance writing during that time. I presently work part-time and am halfway through working on my Ph.D. and have never received anything, but positive support and encouragement from church members. No one has suggested that I get back at home and remain barefoot and pregnant. We readily use birth control and feel very content with the number of children we have. Again, it tends to be more fundamentalist-type churches that have a "no birth control/quiverful" attitude with the literal interpretation of "be fruitful and multiply."
There is also no "cult of the family" at any church I have attended. Is family important? Absolutely!! But I believe both biblically and personally that my priorities are my relationship with God, then my husband, then my children. This has also been the predominant teaching/mindset of most churches. Family does NOT come first. We also allow plenty of room for screw-ups and mistakes, acknowledging that we are mere humans and God is the ultimate parent. Also in an evangelical church, it is not rigidly "rule-regulated", but instead a place where grace should abound. That grace takes in a parent whose child is on drugs and hugs them, cries with them, and says "I don't know your hurt, but I'll be here for you." Grace takes a couple who have just found out that their 15 y/o daughter is pregnant and says "We'll stand beside you and support you all while you figure this out" and then throws a baby shower. I don't know what kind of horrible church situations---and there certainly are some---this woman has seen, but it has not been my experience. Now when parenting goes all wrong, seemingly, by the "way kids turn out", will certain people in a church gossip and condemn? Absolutely! Again, though the church is full of human who unfortunately act awfully human at times. However, I don't think "the universal church" puts any unrealistic demands on women to have 12 children while homeschooling and baking their own bread and if they do anything less then they are a failure.
Finally, every church I have been involved in has had a strong women's ministry that included Bible studies (with childcare provided ), fellowships, girls night out (no kids allowed), and weekend retreats. I have always felt very safe in church to complain about lack of sleep due to children and even not liking my children too much on a particular day for a particular reason...and receive commisseration and BTDT comments as well.
So those are my thoughts. Why do you think this woman is "right on target?"
P.S. I think Andrea Yates probably went to a very rigid church that DID put unrealistic demands on her and probably even empowered her husband to be "the man of the house" at all costs. Unfortunately, the cost was great indeed.
Andrea Yates did not attend a church.
The Evolution of An Illness (Per courttv.com)
Rusty introduced Andrea to a preacher who had impressed him in college, a man named Michael Woroniecki. He was a sharp-witted, sharp-tongued, self-proclaimed "prophet" who preached a simple message about following Jesus but who was so belligerent in public about sinners going to hell (which included most people) that he was often in trouble. He even left Michigan, according to Mugshots, to avoid prosecution.
Rusty corresponded with Woroniecki, who wandered around with his family for several years in a bus, and eventually he believed he had found the Holy Spirit. Woroniecki spent a lot of time in his street sermons and letters to correspondents judging them for their sins and warning them about losing God's love. In particular, he emphasized that people were accountable for children, and woe to the person who might cause even one to stumble. He once stated, "I feel like I need a sledge hammer to get you to listen." He denounced Catholicism, the religion with which Andrea had grown up, and stressed the sinful state of her soul.
He also preached austerity, and his ideas were probably instrumental in the way the Yateses decided to live. As Andrea had one child after another, she took on the task of home-schooling them with Christian-only texts and trying to do what the Woroniecki and his wife, Rachel, told her.
"From the letters I have that Rachel Woroniecki wrote to Andrea," says Suzy Spencer on Mugshots, "it was, 'You are evil. You are wicked. You are a daughter of Eve, who is a wicked witch. The window of opportunity for us to minister to you is closing. You have to repent now.'"
According to a former follower, the religion preached by the Woronieckis involves the idea that women have Eve's witch nature and need to be subservient to men. The preacher judged harshly those mothers who were permissive and who allowed their children to go in the wrong direction. In other words, if the mother was going to Hell for some reason, so would the children.
After two more children had come along, Rusty decided to "travel light," and made his small family sell their possessions and live first in a recreational vehicle and then in a bus that Woroniecki had converted for his religious crusade and sold to them. Andrea didn't complain—she was the type of woman who just went along with decisions---but she got pregnant again and had a miscarriage. Yet it wasn't long before she recovered, was again pregnant and had her fourth child, making their 350-square-foot living quarters rather cramped. She continued to correspond with the Woronieckis and to receive their warnings. They thought it was better to kill oneself than to mislead a child in the way of Jesus—a sentiment she would repeat later in prison interviews.
Not surprisingly, she sank into a depression. She was lonely. She tried to be a good mother, but the pressures were building. At the same time, her father grew ill with Alzheimer's and she had to help care for him. Then things got bad.
Me talking here...
If you read the link above, somewhere in there it makes reference that Andrea and Rusty didn't attend a church, Rusty couldn't find one that followed his beliefs. Instead Michael Woroniecki would send them letters telling them what scriptures to read and what meanings they had to their lives..
I agree, I do not believe that the strive for the unattainable perfection is based on the church, as many mothers are not affiliated with a church yet they still strive to be more than they are capable of becoming and they take blame for things that are clearly out of their hands. We are set up from birth (as women) to have to fight harder to get through this life. And then we turn around and take the world on our shoulders and wonder why we can't handle lives little stresses.
I think she's on target or at least onto something. I *do* see these families, these mothers operating on the basis of fear. Fear they will screw up - it's all *their* responsibility to get it right with their kids.
I never thought of their way of motherhood as coming from the church explicitly though. I didn't know where it was coming from. I mean I figured it was religion based or came from having a controlling dominating DH - but I don't know very much about religion or being married.
I think she might be right though. I think mothers are under tremendous pressure to turn out perfect children. Maybe what I'm seeing is a little downstream from the mothers who feel like the church is directly influencing them to stay home, make babies, homeschool and to keep the wagons circled. By the time I see this it's been watered down some and it becomes "society" who expects mothers to be perfect and turn out perfect kids single-handedly.
But where did this ideal of perfection come from? I think this author may have hit the nail on the head with her theory. I'm going to read the book and see what else she says. It's not like she's an atheist radical liberal writing about this. She's a senior editor of Christian Parenting Today. That means something to me. A lot. It's what makes it an interesting and compelling theory.
Thanks, Pam, for the explanation of Evangelical and fundamentalist. To me it all means "I voted for George Bush" since I don't really understand the difference between the words "Evangelical," "fundamentalist" and "conservative." Do churches ever put the word Evangelical or Fundamentalist in their church name? How do you know a church is one or the other or neither? Or if it's conservative?
The one part of her theory I don't get is her telling mothers to "trust God" because I don't think that's the solution. I think we need to remind mothers that nature is often more powerful than nurture and just bec we turn out a a non-perfect child doesn't mean we failed. It doesn't mean there was something wrong with our mothering. I can see that we would "trust God" in that this child is the exact child we were supposed to be given and raise, but I don't think we should just "trust God" and if we do, our kids will be perfect or even okay.
I don't think that is the context she is meaning. I believe she is saying trust in your instincts (which she refers to in the article) because God gave them to you or trust God to guide you in the right direction. We are told that our instincts are wrong. We are told to follow this book or that teaching if we want to be the BEST mother/wife. Example, say your DD loved cake and she wanted a piece for breakfast, some book would tell you you were wrong for giving her that cake. Your instinct say it won't hurt her to have cake just this once but the social pull tells you she needs a well balanced breakfast. We are supposed to raise our kids according to a social standard, child should be sleeping through the night by ***, eating food by ***, crawling by***, walking by ***, talking by and must speak perfectly by ***, or we have done something wrong.... Then we get together and we talk about the perfection of our families because if we admit we are on the verge of loosing it then we are bad mothers. We can't openly talk about our spouses, we can't admit we are a social failure because we aren't the Leave it to Beaver Family. Like I said, I believe she is referring to our instincts (those things that we as mothers seem to have). We let books and others tell us how our children should be and how we should be with them out of fear of failure and rejection.. But the truth is only you raise YOUR child. YOUR child meaning NO other child is just like yours and that is where the whole nature aspect comes in.
|
Members
