Evangelical Organizations Responses To Domestic Violence

Review of Religious Research
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-022-00493-2
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Evangelical Organizations’ Responses to Domestic Violence:

How the Cultural Production of Religious Beliefs Challenges
or Enshrines Patriarchy
Meredith Whitnah1
Received: 2 August 2021 / Accepted: 26 April 2022

© The Author(s) under exclusive license to Religious Research Association, Inc. 2022
Abstract
Background A significant body of research has established the central role of reli-
gion in creating and preserving cultural beliefs about gender. But existing studies
have tended to focus more on the multiplicity and flexibility of religious beliefs about
gender, and less on the ways in which the cultural production of varying religious
beliefs about gender can involve active conflict. Attending to the institutional pro-
cesses that shape the production of competing beliefs is important for considering
how religion can challenge or enshrine patriarchy.
Purpose This paper examines how religiously formed beliefs about gender are pro-
duced through organizational conflict to shape varying public responses to survivors
of domestic violence.
Methods The paper employs a qualitative, comparative research design to analyze
the public discourse of two evangelical organizations that were founded to produce
and promote two competing gender ideologies in the contemporary evangelical
movement: complementarianism and egalitarianism. Analyzing the public discourse
of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and Christians for Biblical
Equality from 1987 to 2018, I coded for the ways in which both their beliefs about
creation, sin, and submission and their references to one another’s ideologies shape
their different attention to abused women’s experiences.
Results Christians for Biblical Equality both presents domestic violence as a distor-
tion of God-ordained equality and critiques patriarchal theology for contributing to
domestic violence. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood both pres-
ents domestic violence as a distortion of God-ordained male authority and defends
their ideology against criticisms that it promotes abuse. This intersection of beliefs
and organizational conflict results in either centering or pivoting away from abused
women’s experiences.
Conclusions and Implications This study illustrates the importance of examining how
the institutional processes that produce hegemonic and alternative religious belief
systems about gender are marked by the negotiation of both organizational and gen-
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
1 3
dered power. In making this argument, the paper contributes to our understanding of
how religiously formed cultural belief systems can challenge or reinforce patriarchy.
Introduction
In 1994, leaders of two U.S. evangelical organizations that promote competing gen-
der ideologies met to discuss the possibility of issuing a joint statement condemning
domestic violence. While both organizations had named a concern with abuse as a
motivator for their founding in the late 1980s, the meeting did not end well. Leaders
of the egalitarian organization Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) declined to
issue a joint statement because of their convictions about the connections between
patriarchal theology and abuse (Beck 1995).1 Leaders of the complementarian orga-
nization the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) protested that,
“there are responsible Christians who believe in non-abusive [male] authority in mar-
riage” (CBMW Council 1995) and released their own statement. This disagreement
about the possible connections between theology and domestic violence has contin-
ued to reverberate over time. As recently as 2016, a CBMW author cited this particu-
lar incident as proof that egalitarians care more about winning the evangelical battle
over gender than responding to domestic violence (Kassian 2016). CBE leaders have
continued to critique the role of patriarchal theology in abuse, while also referencing
complementarian defensiveness as a significant impediment to responding to domes-
tic violence in the church (Haddad 2016).
While conflicts like this one are not new to U.S. evangelicalism (Gallagher 2003),
existing scholarship on gender and religion has tended to pay more attention to the
fact of the multiplicity of religious beliefs within a particular tradition than to the
active struggle over gendered power that characterizes the institutional production
and reproduction of this multiplicity of beliefs. We know that religion is an impor-
tant site for the creation and preservation of cultural beliefs about gender (Ammer-
man 1987; Avishai et al. 2015; Bartkowski 1997, 2001; Chong 2008; Darwin 2018;
Davidman 1991; Gallagher 2003; Heath 2003; Ingersoll 2003; Irby 2014; Mahmood
2005; Rinaldo 2019; Wilcox 2004). We also know that hegemonic cultural beliefs
about gender play a central role in reproducing and sustaining the gender system
overall (Ridgeway & Correll 2004; see also England 2010). Some attention has also
been given to the way that alternative belief systems are formed alongside or in con-
trast to hegemonic ones (Gerber 2015; Heath 2003; Ridgeway 2011), as well as to the
ways that hegemonic gender configurations can vary across different local, regional,
and global contexts (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005; Messerschmidt 2018). Yet we
have not fully considered how religious institutions’ cultural production of hege-
monic and alternative belief systems do not simply coexist or vary across different
social domains, but can also involve active conflict.
1
CBE’s decision not to publish the joint statement because of their understanding of the role of theology
in abuse was also confirmed in an interview I conducted with one of the founders of CBE in 2009.
1 3
This paper examines the consequences of such institutional conflicts for religious
organizations’ responses to domestic violence.2 Through a qualitative content analy-
sis of published documents from two U.S. evangelical organizations, the paper shows
that their responses to domestic violence are due not only to their different beliefs
about gender, but also to an active conflict with one another about these belief sys-
tems. CBMW produces the hegemonic evangelical ideology of complementarianism,
which emphasizes distinct gender roles and men’s authority over women. In this
view, domestic violence results from men who overexert their God-ordained author-
ity. CBE’s egalitarian belief system promotes the alternative evangelical ideology
of gender equality and shared roles. As such, CBE’s view is that domestic violence
results from power differences that distort God’s intention of equal dignity and shared
power.
As their inability to produce a joint statement on abuse suggests, these conflicting
views are produced and reproduced with both implicit and explicit reference to one
another’s belief system. CBE asserts that CBMW’s complementarianism is in fact
a handmaiden of patriarchy housed in the form of a theology that contributes to the
likelihood of domestic violence. CBMW stalwartly rejects such claims that directly
connect their theological position to abuse and defends their beliefs in distinct gender
roles, including men’s authority in marriage.
The paper argues that these dynamics of critique and defensiveness in their battle
over gender have clear implications for the organizations’ postures towards women
who experience abuse. CBE’s criticism of complementarianism is both fueled by
and reinforces their prioritization of women’s experiences to challenge male power.
CBMW’s deflection of the charge that their ideology can lead to abuse leads them
to discursively de-emphasize, even marginalize, women’s experiences in order to
enshrine male power.
Thus, the paper shows that while these belief systems are both produced as alter-
natives to hegemonic beliefs in broader society, the organizations’ disagreement
about the role of patriarchal beliefs in domestic violence is also manifested through
the negotiation of a second-order hegemony within evangelicalism.3 CBMW pro-
duces the hegemonic gender belief system within the subculture, one that also reso-
nates with gender essentialist beliefs in broader society (England 2010; Ridgeway
2011). CBE produces the marginal view within the subculture, one that also resonates
with gender egalitarian beliefs in broader society (England 2010; Ridgeway 2011).
In attempting to maintain their hegemonic status within the subculture, CBMW pro-
duces gender essentialist beliefs to deflect criticisms that their belief system is harm-
ful to women because it contributes to abuse. This results in a defense of both their
organizational status and patriarchy. In attempting to promote an alternative to this
hegemonic evangelical view, CBE produces gender egalitarian beliefs to critique the
influence of patriarchy in the church. In fact, although CBE produces the marginal
2
It is important to note that the paper focuses specifically on the negotiation of organizational and gen-
dered power within cultural production processes of key evangelical institutions. The focus of this analy-
sis is not on the ways in which these processes shape everyday evangelical beliefs and behavior, nor
should such a relationship be assumed.
3
I am grateful to one of the reviewers for this language of “second-order hegemony.”
1 3
gender belief system within the subculture, their insistence on the complicity of patri-
archal theology in abuse also sets the terms of the organizations’ conflict with one
another. In making this argument, the paper contributes to our understanding of how
patriarchy can be reinforced or challenged through the cultural production of compet-
ing gender belief systems.
Background
Gender, Religion, and Cultural Beliefs
This paper builds on current research on the ways in which gender and religion are
mutually constitutive (Avishai et al. 2015; Rinaldo 2019) and contributes to efforts
to address the “bifurcated conversations” that have characterized research on gender
and religion (Avishai & Irby 2017). It does so by drawing on a key insight in gender
theory about the centrality of cultural beliefs to gender systems (Ridgeway & Correll
2004; Ridgeway 2011) to illuminate how institutional responses to domestic violence
in evangelicalism are shaped by a conflict over gender that has been central to U.S.
evangelical identity both historically and today (Barr 2021; DuMez 2020; Gallagher
2003; Ingersoll 2003). As Ridgeway & Correll (2004, 514) point out, examining
the role of beliefs in gender systems involves attention both to “hegemonic cultural
beliefs” as well as “alternative gender belief systems.” That is, while broadly held
cultural beliefs in men’s superiority and higher status over women are central to
explaining persisting gender inequality (England 2010; Ridgeway 2011), we should
also consider how cultural beliefs about gender vary across social contexts and for
different social groups.
While gender scholarship has not always attended to the significance of religion
as a key social institution for the creation, preservation, or challenge of gender belief
systems (Avishai & Irby 2017; Charlton 2015), many recent studies of gender and
religion have established the importance of religion as a site for the production and
reproduction of cultural beliefs about gender (e.g., Ammerman 1987; Avishai 2008;
Avishai et al. 2015; Bartkowski 2001; Chaves 1997; Chong 2008; Darwin 2018;
Davidman 1991; Gallagher 2003; Ingersoll 2003; Irby 2014; Heath 2003; Leamaster
& Einwohner 2018; Mahmood 2005; Rao 2015; Rinaldo 2019). This scholarship
has included attention to polyvocality in religious elites’ production of gender and
sexuality belief systems (Bartkowski 1997; Irby 2013; Gallagher 2003; Read & Bart-
kowski 2000; Thomas & Olson 2012; Thomas & Whitehead 2015). We also know
that the production of religious gender belief systems varies across different religious
traditions (Wilcox 2004) and that it can involve the negotiation of elite interests to
promote conservative gender ideology within the Bible itself (Perry 2020). Indeed,
religion provides an important site for examining the social significance of cultural
beliefs that sustain or challenge the gender system.
The emphasis in this scholarship tends to be on multiplicity and flexibility within
religious discourses, including how everyday practitioners interpret and negotiate
religious discourses about gender in varying ways. Less attention has been paid to
the negotiation of gendered power within the process of cultural production of gen-
1 3
der belief systems.4 Yet we know that gendered belief systems do not simply exist,
nor are they exclusively navigated, reinforced, or challenged in everyday life; they
are also continuously produced and reproduced within institutions and organizations
(Acker 1992; Chappell 2006; Connell & Messerschmidt 2005; Katzenstein 1999;
Messerschmidt 2018; Smith 1987). Indeed, attending to organizational and institu-
tional processes of cultural production is central for illuminating the way gender
operates as a social structure (Risman 2004, 434).
Examining the cultural production processes that create and reproduce beliefs
about gender helps us to see the ways in which hegemonic cultural beliefs manifest
in varying ways depending on the context. Indeed, as Raewyn Connell has consis-
tently established, examining multiple expressions of gender includes attending both
to the centrality of cultural institutions in promoting hegemonic expressions of gen-
der, as well as to the ways in which hegemonic gender configurations are produced
and navigated across local, regional, and global contexts (Connell 2002; Connell &
Messerschmidt 2005; Messerschmidt 2018). This paper considers how hegemony
is produced and challenged within a religious subculture through organizational
conflict. Such conflicts are socially significant because gender beliefs play a signifi-
cant role in collective boundary negotiation (Gamson 1997). Examining the role of
competing cultural beliefs about gender in internal contests about collective identity
reveals the workings of gendered power as symbolic boundaries are negotiated and
contested (Gamson 1997; Taylor & Whittier 1992).
The paper brings together these insights from gender theory to show that it is
not simply that multiple gender beliefs within evangelicalism exist as alternatives to
broader societal beliefs, but also that these beliefs are produced through institutional
conflict. As competing beliefs are reproduced, a second-order hegemony manifests
within this particular religious subculture. That is, belief systems that function as
alternatives to broader social norms are also actively formed as hegemonic and non-
hegemonic within the subculture. In making this argument, the paper demonstrates
how the production of religious belief systems about gender involves both vying for
organizational status and either challenging or upholding patriarchal power.
Gender, Religion, and Domestic Violence
The negotiation of gendered power in the cultural production of competing religious

belief systems is particularly important when we consider institutional responses
to domestic violence. Research on the question of whether religiously sanctioned
beliefs in patriarchal power are complicit in domestic violence has yielded some
conflicting results. On the one hand, some empirical research on the intersections of
4
Julie Ingersoll’s (2003) study represents an important exception in the vast array of studies of gender
and religion that have analyzed multiplicity, flexibility, and contingency. Her analysis of CBE and the
Southern Baptist Convention illuminates some of the consequences of the gender debate for evangelical
women’s everyday experiences in various institutions. I shift our focus to the public discourse of two
organizations that have been the flagship para-church organizations representing the two key ideologies.
Focusing on these two organizations’ discourse allows us to bring the conflict, itself, more centrally into
view.
1 3
religion, gender, and abuse has found that gender traditionalist religious beliefs are
not correlated with abuse (Wilcox 2004). In addition, high levels of religious involve-
ment can be protective against abuse (Ellison et al. 1999; Ellison & Anderson 2001;
Cunradi et al. 2002). In fact, Wilcox’s comparative study of conservative Protestant
and mainline Protestant men found that conservative Protestant men who report high
levels of church attendance are the least likely to perpetrate violence against their
wives (2004, 181-2). Other studies have found that evangelicalism can provide prac-
tical and symbolic resources to women who have experienced abuse (Griffith 2000),
and can challenge the broader social and cultural norms that would support men’s
violence (Brusco 1995).
On the other hand, a longstanding tradition of research has illuminated religion’s
complicity in abuse. This includes the role of beliefs about scriptural teachings on
women’s subordinate status and divorce (Nason-Clark et al. 2018). Religious wom-
en’s pathways to leave abusive relationships can be constrained as they face sanctions
for divorce, and they may be charged with not “submitting” to their husbands (Nason-
Clark 1997; Sharp 2009). In addition, men who hold more conservative theological
beliefs about scriptural authority than their wives have been found to be more likely
to perpetrate violence (Ellison et al. 1999). And Wilcox’s comparative study presents
a puzzle that warrants further empirical investigation, as conservative Protestant men
who are infrequent church attenders are the group most likely to perpetrate domestic
violence (2004, 181). Wilcox suggests that this surprising finding might be attrib-
uted to patriarchal gender ideology having more strength apart from institutions that
otherwise impose sanctions against domestic violence as they promote marital and
family engagement (183).
Yet other studies that have focused on clergy and congregational responses to
domestic violence paint a more complicated picture of religious institutions, point-
ing us to the importance of examining the cultural production of religious beliefs.
While ascribing to beliefs in gender equality or hierarchy does not seem to predict
the likelihood of individuals experiencing abuse, these views do matter for religious
institutions’ responses. Clergy, for instance, can exhibit a lack of knowledge and
training about domestic violence, and provide unhelpful responses to abusive situa-
tions (Levitt & Ware 2006; Nason-Clark 1997; Nason-Clark et al. 2018). These inad-
equate or even harmful responses to abusive relationships can be linked to the gender
ideologies that a congregation espouses (Nason-Clark et al. 2018). In fact, one recent
study of seminary students found that their affirmation of religious beliefs that sup-
port hierarchical gender relationships was correlated with the likelihood of affirming
domestic violence myths (Jankowski et al. 2018).
While current research suggests some important connections among gender
beliefs and institutions’ responses to abuse, we have yet to develop a robust analysis
of the ways in which the cultural production of gendered religious belief systems
can facilitate or constrain institutional responses to religious women who experience
abuse. Thus, this paper contributes to our knowledge of gender, religion, and abuse
by examining the consequences of a longstanding disagreement among evangelical
elites about whether gendered power differences are biblically mandated for institu-
tional responses to abuse.
1 3
The Evangelical Gender Debate
The contemporary U.S. evangelical gender debate provides an important empirical

case for examining the ways in which the production of competing gender belief
systems shapes institutional responses to abuse. From the 1980s through the pres-
ent, “complementarians” and “egalitarians” have debated the biblical view of gen-
der.5 Both complementarianism and egalitarianism are forms of alternative cultural
belief systems about gender in the U.S., but they occupy different positions within
the evangelical subculture. Complementarians have advanced the hegemonic evan-
gelical view of gender difference and hierarchy (Gallagher 2004b), arguing that men
and women are equal in value but should have different roles in both churches and
homes (e.g., Grudem & Piper 1991). Egalitarians have expressed the more marginal
evangelical position of gender equality and shared power (Gallagher 2004b), arguing
for the equality of men and women (e.g., Pierce & Groothius 2004).6
These different evangelical belief systems about gender have been analyzed in
relation to the ways that everyday evangelicals navigate biblical teachings on hus-
bands’ “headship” and wives’ “submission” in marriage in flexible ways (Bartkowski
2001; Gallagher & Smith 1999), and for the challenges they can pose for women,
specifically, as they navigate the confines of evangelical institutions (Ingersoll 2003;
Perry 2013). Some attention has also been given to shifts over time in these belief
systems, including an increased complementarian emphasis on men’s self-sacrificial
leadership (Bartkowski 2004; Wilcox 2004), and to how these elite debates create a
“disrupted landscape” for younger generations of evangelicals (Irby 2013). But we
have yet to fully examine how the debate itself is marked by the exercise and negotia-
tion of gendered power.
This paper analyzes two U.S. evangelical organizations that were founded in the
late 1980s to develop and promote these competing gender belief systems. Christians
for Biblical Equality (CBE) is based in Minneapolis, MN, and was started in 1987 by
members of the Evangelical Women’s Caucus who wanted to promote gender equal-
ity without compromising on sexuality (Cochran 2005; Ingersoll 2003). They have
occupied an interstitial position in the subculture (Lindsay 2010; see also Creegan &
Pohl 2006), accepting some secular feminist insights while also promoting gender
equality as biblical. Indeed, while CBE’s ideology is resonant with broader cultural
norms of gender equality and acceptance of women in leadership positions (Barna
Group 2017), they still firmly identify as evangelical and advocate that the right bib-
5
There are deeper, historically rooted patterns regarding gender in evangelicalism, as such scholars as
Barr (2021), DuMez (2020), and Gallagher (2003) have documented. This paper’s focus is on the ways in
which the contemporary evangelical movement in the U.S. has been embroiled in a conflict over gender,
one that is central to contemporary evangelical identity (Ingersoll 2003).
6
Unfortunately, there has not been a more recent, national survey that explicitly asks evangelicals about
their views of headship and submission since Gallagher’s work (2003; 2004a; 2004b; Gallagher & Smith
1999). As I show throughout this section, we do have some ways to consider the extent to which these
ideologies continue to hold symbolic and/or practical value to evangelicals today. But I acknowledge
that this lack of current survey data on evangelical beliefs about headship and submission is an important
limitation.
1 3
lical view of gender is one that promotes such equality (Bilezikian et al. 1989; CBE
2022).
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) is based in Louis-
ville, KY, and was formally established in 1989 after evangelical leaders met in 1987
to discuss their concerns over the growing influence of evangelical feminism within
the subculture (Grudem 2009). Their position in the subculture has been defined by
efforts to defend inherent gender difference as a biblical teaching and to limit the
reach of feminism and secular culture in evangelicalism (CBMW Council 1987;
CBMW 2022). This insistence on distinct gender roles has some continued reso-
nance in broader U.S. society (Pew Research Center 2020), but it also places CBMW
in the posture of defending their ideology in contrast to broader cultural affirmations
of gender equality and acceptance of women in leadership positions (Barna Group
2017; Pew Research Center 2020).
They have each sought to influence mainstream evangelicalism. Each organiza-
tion published their founding belief statements in the flagship evangelical journal,
Christianity Today. While their influence has varied over time, both organizations
have recently taken up social issues in ways that have brought them more attention.
CBMW published “The Nashville Statement” in 2017, a document that affirms sex-
ual difference as biblical and emerged out of concerns with the growing acceptance of
homosexuality and “transgenderism” in the church and broader society. This realign-
ment of their organizational identity around sexuality continues to bring them visibil-
ity within the evangelical subculture; for instance, their significance was discussed as
recently as the January/February 2021 issue of Christianity Today. CBE has recently
developed a more global and intersectional perspective, and they have devoted sig-
nificant attention to the #MeToo and #ChurchToo movements. While they appear to
have less visibility within the subculture, they have experienced some revitalization
in the #ChurchToo era. According to the ECFA, an established evangelical group
for financial accountability, their recent total revenue was $1,448,613, compared to
CBMW’s $265,749.7
Even as the dynamics of evangelical attention to gender have shifted somewhat
over time, their conflict with one another has been one of the remarkably consistent
features of these organizations’ identity and practices, from their founding to the
present. CBE was founded not only to promote gender equality as a biblical man-
date (Bilezikian et al. 1989), but also to articulate an alternative to complementar-
ian ideology as a form of patriarchy (e.g., Haddad 2016; see also Gallagher 2004a).
Authors have critiqued CBMW in the past and the present, including a contemporary
discussion of “complementarian theology in crisis” that references CBMW’s new
leader (Giles 2018). CBMW was founded not only to teach different gender roles
as a biblical mandate (CBMW Council 1987), but also to defend the Bible’s teach-
ings from feminist critique (e.g., Grudem 2009; see also Gallagher 2004a). Authors
for CBMW have published multiple pieces that critique CBE authors (e.g., CBMW
Council 1997; Miles 2013) and have referenced CBE leaders in recent appeals for
funding (Grudem 2020). The analysis below considers how these patterns of both
7
The ECFA member profile for CBE can be found here: https://www.ecfa.org/MemberProfile.
aspx?ID=7313. CBMW’s can be found here: https://www.ecfa.org/MemberProfile.aspx?ID=12088.
1 3
historical and contemporary boundary drawing in their production of competing gen-

der beliefs shape their responses to abuse.
Egalitarians and complementarians have disagreed about a range of issues, rang-
ing from gender-neutral Bible translations (Kohlenberger 2002; Grudem 2009) to
parenting (Fry 2009; Nesper, undated); from women’s ordination (Piper & Gru-
dem 1991; Davis 2009) to the cultural context of first-century Ephesus (Kroeger &
Kroeger 1992; Baugh 1994). In that context, their consistent and vociferous disagree-
ment about domestic violence provides a particularly interesting case for analysis
because it is a key social issue that they agree is problematic. Indeed, both organiza-
tions named a concern with domestic violence in their founding belief statements
(Bilizikean et al. 1989; CBMW Council 1987). But, as I analyze below, they give
very different accounts of why it is problematic. This disagreement centers on inter-
pretations of a biblical teaching that has been at the heart of their belief systems:
the question of whether women are uniquely called to submit to men who enact
“headship” over women. As I show below, the problem of domestic violence occu-
pies particular symbolic importance because CBE alleges that the headship doctrine
makes women vulnerable to abuse, and CBMW defends the ideology of male head-
ship against the critique that it is, in fact, abusive.
Methods & Data
This paper draws on a qualitative content analysis of the public discourse of CBE and
CBMW. I purposively sampled documents from each group’s website from their first
publications in 1987 through 2018 (N = 170). I purposively sampled documents that
address abuse by conducting a keyword search on “abuse,” “rape,” and “domestic
violence” on their websites. I read all the documents from that search multiple times,
organized them chronologically, and coded them according to type of document and
according to whether addressing domestic violence was the main point or a sub-point
in the document. The sample is comprised of blog posts, book reviews, and articles
in their published journals. The texts were written by a range of authors for each
organization, including their leaders, staff, and guest authors.
In the time period analyzed, the organizations published documents that discuss
abuse with similar frequency: CBE published 92 documents, while CBMW pub-
lished 78. In the first twenty-five years of their existence, they published documents
with the same frequency. Between 2012 and 2015, CBMW published more docu-
ments, and then CBE published more than CBMW from 2015 to 2018. These patterns
may reflect some of the organizational shifts described above, especially with CBE
addressing the #MeToo and #ChurchToo movements.
The chronological ordering and codes for the aim of the piece revealed some
important patterns. CBE’s articles more frequently address domestic violence as the
main point of the article (72 out of 92), whereas for CBMW, abuse emerges more
frequently as a sub-point or an example of a broader point (61 out of 78). Interest-
ingly, neither the temporal arrangement of the pieces nor the internal codes described
below revealed significant change over time in the substance of the arguments made
by either organization. But the chronological ordering did reveal some of the dynam-
1 3
ics of critique and defensiveness analyzed below. For instance, while concern with
domestic violence is named in both organizations’ founding belief statements, CBE
published five articles that addressed domestic violence and the church as the main
point of the pieces before CBMW published any pieces that address domestic vio-
lence as the main point of an article. Three of these five early articles by CBE critique
the role of patriarchal theology in abuse. CBMW’s first major publication on abuse
is their own statement against abuse. Immediately below it is a critique of CBE for
declining to issue a joint statement, as described in the paper’s introduction. These
codes thus helped to reveal the ways in which CBE set the terms of the debate about
connections between the headship doctrine and abuse, and illuminated the patterns of
critique and defensiveness that are analyzed below.
Guided by the theoretical framework articulated above, I coded each document
internally. To examine how the substance of their different cultural belief systems
shapes their responses to abuse, I coded for specific beliefs concerning creation, sin,
and marital submission. These codes included both their invocation and interpreta-
tion of particular biblical passages. For instance, a code for a reference to the biblical
account of creation was elaborated by their interpretation of that biblical passage as
teaching equality or hierarchy. Similarly, codes for their references to the biblical
teaching of submission in marriage include both their occurrence, as well as how an
author was promoting an interpretation of gendered submission or calling for equal
submission.
To examine the role of boundaries and organizational conflict, I coded for the
specific ways in which their conflict over the right interpretation of the Bible for
gender shaped their responses to abuse. This included coding for references to the
other organization by name, to complementarianism or egalitarianism, and to patri-
archy and feminism generally as part of their diagnosis of and response to abuse.
These codes also included their articulation of a connection between the other orga-
nization’s theology and the likelihood of abuse, and their depictions of the role of
churches in theologies that either contribute to or protect against abuse.
Finally, I coded for inclusion of a narrative of abuse. This included documenting
whether a narrative was included as well as coding for its substance. CBE included
37 narratives, while CBMW included two. I coded for whether and how a narrative of
abuse named the role of theology in the experience of abuse. This included whether
the narrative served to affirm a religious belief or to contradict it.
The analysis that follows is organized in three main sections. First, the paper
shows how the specific gender beliefs of each organization shape their understanding
of domestic violence. Second, it shows how their organizational positioning in the
gender debate results in critiquing or defending ideology as they respond to abuse.
Third, the paper demonstrates how beliefs and position intersect to either center or
pivot away from narratives of women who experience abuse.
1 3
Results
Gender Beliefs: Creation, Sin, and Submission
CBE: Equal Dignity, Different Power
Authors for both organizations draw on different beliefs about three main theological
concepts: creation, which involves the fundamental purpose and ordering of human
nature; sin, which includes what constitutes disordering of the original intent in the
created order; and submission, which includes gender relations in marriage, in par-
ticular. Writers for CBE perceive abuse to be a distortion of men and women’s shared
dignity. They describe the ways in which sinful power imbalances contribute to abuse,
in contradiction to the Bible’s teachings about gender equality. Authors explain that
abuse is rooted in “human depravity” that contributes to “gender oppression and vio-
lence” (Tracy 2009). They also contend that it is impossible to understand or reckon
with abuse unless gendered power differences are rectified. For instance, in a piece
on the practical implications of theology for abuse, social development consultant
Wilma Luimes writes, “Because we are equally valuable, we have a responsibility
to recognize the image of God in others and not to pursue a position of power over
someone else” (Luimes 2016). CBE’s logic presumes that widespread human deprav-
ity has particular gendered consequences, so instead of supporting power differences
between men and women that can contribute to abuse, Christians are to enact the
fundamental equality of men and women.
CBE writers also perceive that the sinful distortion of God-given dignity and
equality into abuse has particular consequences for women. For instance, psycholo-
gist Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen notes that, “one of the most difficult tasks [counsel-
ors] have with female abuse victims is convincing them that they are, in fact, made in
the image of God and as such deserve to [be] treated with dignity and respect” (1994,
3). Abuse is an issue that highlights the gendered consequences of power differences
that come from not following biblical teachings on men and women’s fundamental
equality and dignity.
These descriptions of fundamental equality that becomes sinfully distorted into
gendered abuse also involve reclaiming the dignity of both men and women in order
to solve the problem. This includes promoting the submission of husbands and wives
to each other. For instance, counselor James Potter writes that God detests violence,
especially that committed by a husband against a wife (1996, 12). He then writes
that it is rare for a man to “grasp the significance of his personal responsibility in
submission and service to his wife” (13, emphasis original). For Potter, the solution
to abuse is for men to understand that they are to practice submission and sacrifice
to their wives, rather than exercising power over them. Similarly, in a more recent
piece describing the differences among patriarchal, secular feminist, and Christian
feminist perspectives on abuse, Rebecca Kotz, who works at a victim services non-
profit, notes that the Christian feminist perspective is centered on the teaching that,
“God designed men with all of the humanity, compassion, integrity, strength, and
tenderness that he designed women with” (2016). For CBE, both men and women’s
dignity is compromised when gender equality is distorted into men exercising power
1 3
over women, which contributes to abuse. The solution is to reclaim the fundamental
qualities that both men and women share.
CBMW: Equal Depravity, Different Essential Gender
For CBMW, convictions around essential sex and gender differences mean that abuse
is framed as a gendered phenomenon, one that emerges as a particular problem for
men who overextend their God-given leadership and authority. As they describe
men’s essential nature being sinfully distorted to make them abusers, authors also
emphasize that women are equally sinful to men. One of CBMW’s earliest men-
tions of abuse is in a reprinted sermon by Baptist pastor and complementarian leader
John Piper. Rape and abuse are presented as particular sins that men commit against
women: “As a rule men have more brute strength than women and so they can rape
and abuse and threaten and sit around and snap their finger” (Piper 1989). Piper then
immediately launches into a commentary on women’s sinfulness: “But it’s just as true
that women are sinners….Women may not have as much brute strength as men but
she knows ways to subdue him. She can very often run circles around him with her
words and where her words fail she knows the weakness of his lust” (Piper 1989).
For Piper, brutish men and seductress women are equally sinful. In fact, where men’s
physical strength is their essential power over women, women’s attempts to “subdue”
men indicate that they have their own form of power.
CBMW’s depiction of equal depravity yet distinctly gendered forms of sinfulness
sometimes implies that women bear responsibility for men sinning against them.
For instance, in a coauthored piece that presents a married couple’s perspective on
marriage, the husband states, “Wives will sin against husbands. The tendency is for
husbands, then, to take the upper hand…This sin rears its ugly head in the form of
manipulation, harshness, contempt, or even forms of abuse. At this point husbands
have abandoned godly leadership” (Starke and Starke 2009). CBMW conceives of
abuse as a particular form of men forsaking their God-ordained leadership. But abuse
is also cast as a problem that follows wives’ sin against their husbands.
These descriptions of gendered sin also result in calls for gendered solutions to
abuse. Where CBE emphasized reclaiming equal dignity and men submitting to their
wives, CBMW authors promote benevolent male leadership. As theology professor
Rob Lister suggests, the solution to abuse is “the embrace of a truly biblical com-
plementarity, whereby the husband leads and sacrificially loves his wife as Christ
loves the church and the wife graciously submits herself to her husband’s leadership
just as the church submits to Christ” (Lister 2004, 102). Similarly, Southern Baptist
leader Russell Moore writes, “only a historic vision of self-sacrificial male headship
can provide the revelatory framework for a Christian response to the abuse culture”
(Moore 2007, 4). For CBMW, men are to reclaim their role as protector and provider,
while women are to benefit from men’s protection as they submit and not try to usurp
men’s authority.
For CBE, beliefs in equality and mutuality lead to a depiction of gendered experi-
ences of abuse due to sinful power imbalances. For CBMW, by contrast, beliefs in
inherent gender difference lead to a depiction of equal sinfulness that has different
gendered expression. Both organizations contend that their beliefs actually provide
1 3
the solution to abuse. These different understandings of abuse are rooted in the orga-
nizations’ different gender belief systems. But, as the next section demonstrates, the
organizations’ conflict and the dynamics of either producing an alternative ideology
or maintaining a hegemonic one also shape their responses to abuse.
Challenging or Defending Patriarchy
CBE: Critiquing Patriarchy, Promoting Equality
As CBE writers emphasize the equality of men and women and advocate for the
Bible’s message of mutual submission between husbands and wives, they also cri-
tique religious teachings that enshrine male power. Indeed, for CBE, abuse and patri-
archy are inextricably linked to each other. Their production of beliefs about gender
equality draws clear boundaries against complementarian beliefs as a form of patriar-
chy that keeps women in abusive marriages. They critique such teachings to produce
an alternative evangelical belief system.
For instance, Methodist pastor and professor Heath (1999) criticizes the role of
patriarchal teachings on wives’ submission to husbands in contributing to abuse in
the church. She writes that, “in traditional, patriarchal marriages where the husband
is ‘head’ and the wife ‘submits’ there is a vastly greater chance that the wife will be
battered…Church-sanctioned patriarchy is one of the primary reasons that women
remain in violent relationships” (Heath 1999, 10). Heath asserts that religious teach-
ings on male authority over women are a form of patriarchy that contributes to abuse.
In this way, condemning abuse in the church involves challenging religious ideolo-
gies that support male power.
Heath goes on to write, “The repentant church becomes one in which men and
women are seen as equal partners in church, home and society, and whose gifts are
developed and welcomed in the church at every level of leadership. Equality and
mutual submission (Eph. 5:21) are the norm” (1999, 16). As she critiques comple-
mentarian perspectives on wives’ submission to their husbands, Heath calls for the
church to repent of its complicity in abuse by teaching and practicing gender equal-
ity. CBE authors produce beliefs in equality in the context of a critique of patriarchal
theology, promoting egalitarian beliefs as an alternative that can resolve abuse.
More recently, Rachel Asproth, a CBE staff member at the time, directly critiques
complementarian leader and CBMW Council Member John Piper, for implying that
women should be prepared to tolerate abuse for a season.8 She writes, “When your
theology tells you that submission is your ultimate purpose as a person of faith, you
are far more likely to tolerate abuse… many Christian women genuinely believe that
it would be wrong to leave and divorce their violent or abusive spouses, because of
theology like this” (Asproth 2015, emphasis original). Asproth critiques a comple-
mentarian leader to challenge teachings on male leadership and female submission
for their complicity in women staying in abusive relationships.
Asproth Concludes Her Piece by Calling for Liberation From Patriarchy: “Herein
lies the great power of patriarchy—it uses God-language to subordinate women and
8
Asproth refers to Piper’s comments in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OkUPc2NLrM.
1 3
so it is in its theology, at the roots of patriarchy, where the work must be done to lib-
erate women” (2015). Asproth contends that patriarchal theology is central to abuse,
and complementarianism is a handmaiden of such dangerous theology for women.
CBE’s response to abuse emerges from the ways that their production of alternative
beliefs in gender equality directly challenges the hegemonic model of male power
and female subordination that complementarianism promotes.
CBMW: Defending Male Power, Promoting Benevolent Patriarchy
In CBMW’s discourse, too, their response to abuse emerges through a cultural pro-
duction process that is shaped by their organizational conflict with CBE. Where CBE
develops a critique of complementarianism as a form of patriarchy that contributes
to abuse, CBMW adopts an organizational defense to that challenge. CBMW authors
draw clear boundaries against egalitarians’ criticisms to protect their own position
from the contention that it promotes abusive male dominance. This pattern emerges
through their attempts to maintain a hegemonic status within the subculture. As they
seek to maintain their organizational status, they defend their belief system, warding
off criticisms that it contributes to abuse.
CBMW authors frequently distance their own ideology from abusive male author-
ity as they actively defend their position from egalitarian criticism. For instance, the-
ology professor Rob Lister writes a book review that accuses Lee Grady, a “staunch
proponent of egalitarianism” who serves on CBE’s Board of Reference, of collapsing
male dominance and complementarian beliefs: “the abusive male dominance view
and the complementarian view are clearly not the same…a distinction—which Grady
appears not to make—is in order between an abusive notion of male dominance and
a complementarian notion of male headship” (Lister 2004, 102, emphasis original).
Where CBE critiques complementarianism for being a version of patriarchy that is
complicit in the abuse of women, CBMW contends that men can lead women without
dominating and abusing them. This defense of non-abusive men who nevertheless
hold authority over women emerges through CBMW’s response to egalitarian claims
about theology and abuse.
CBMW’s deflection of the charge that complementarian teaching is complicit in
abuse sometimes results in strong defenses of patriarchy as God’s intended order.
For instance, pastor Timothy Bayly, the Executive Director of CBMW at the time,
begins an editorial by critiquing a book of conference papers on patriarchy and abuse
that CBE published.9 He then contends that we have focused far too much on men’s
violence against women, ignoring the fact that women also abuse men—indeed, that
“while the abuse of husbands against wives is decreasing, that of wives against hus-
bands is rapidly increasing” (2000). The piece ends with these lines:
Domestic violence is tragic enough, without it being used as a weapon in the

arsenal of egalitarians. Men and boys suffering at the hands of women must be
9
This piece is in a CBMW journal issue that is no longer on CBMW’s website. Bayly republished the
piece on a personal blog on October 26, 2020: https://warhornmedia.com/2020/10/26/women-who-
abuse-feminists-big-lie/.
1 3
abandoned no longer—do they not, also, have a proper claim to the compassion
and protection of the Household of Faith? Finally, who is willing to speak up
for God? It is He Who has decreed, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have
authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”
To lay the blame for domestic abuse at the door of patriarchy, then, is to slander
the Lord of Hosts (Bayly 2000).
Bayly’s response to abuse does not simply invoke complementarian beliefs; he also
defends men against egalitarian claims that there is a connection between patriarchy
and abuse. To do this, he invokes a biblical passage that calls for women’s silence.
These examples from both organizations show how their different gender belief
systems are produced in the context of a conflict with one another that shapes their
responses to abuse. CBE’s insistence that patriarchy and abuse are linked supports
their contention that an alternative evangelical gender belief system is needed. This
criticism is rebutted by CBMW’s defense that complementarianism is a benevolent
form of male leadership that is not abusive. Indeed, the organizations’ responses to
abuse come not only from their organizational conflict, but also from either challeng-
ing or maintaining male power. These dynamics of organizational positioning and
dispositions toward male power shape how differently the organizations perceive and
respond to women’s experiences of abuse, as the next section demonstrates.
Implications for Attention to Abused Women
CBE: Centering Women’s Experiences to Challenge Male Power
CBE’s discourse includes extensive attention to women who have experienced abuse;
37 out of 92 documents, almost 40% of their articles, include a story of abuse. By
contrast, CBMW includes only two narratives of women who experience abuse, as
analyzed below. CBE authors draw attention to the role of patriarchal theology in
women’s experience of abuse, and they critique complementarianism for its com-
plicity. They produce egalitarian beliefs as an alternative to the hegemonic teaching
within evangelicalism, critiquing the ways that the dominant subcultural ideology
endangers women. In this process, women’s experiences are discursively centered to
challenge male power and promote equality.
CBE authors draw on women’s experience of abuse to challenge religious teach-
ings that uphold men’s authority over women. For instance, counselor Gerald Ford
(2007) reflects on his experience of counseling abuse victims to critique the church
for promoting problematic beliefs in gender difference rather than promoting equality.
He writes that an abused woman often, “‘tolerates and stays’ [in an abusive relation-
ship] because she has been led to believe that her husband must be right, more holy,
or more important” (2007). Ford critiques the role of patriarchal religious beliefs in
women staying in abusive marriages and advocates for a model that does not enshrine
male power but instead recognizes that “Scripture speaks of both men and women as
both strong and nurturing” (Ford 2007).
Similarly, counselor Al Miles (2007) describes a training session he ran for church
leaders on domestic violence in the church, in which he recounted a true story of a
1 3
husband who poured boiling water over his wife after she declined to have sex with
him, telling her she must submit to him because the Bible says he is her master. Miles
writes that his audience’s first response to this story included asking, “what about all
the men being battered by women?” and noting that they didn’t know what the wife
did to “provoke [the husband’s] anger” (2007). Miles expresses his concern with
how common it is for “clergy and congregation members alike…to offer excuses
and justifications for the actions of an abusive man” (2007). He proposes that men
instead need “to join women to work toward bringing an end to all the violence men
perpetrate against women, children, and each other” (Miles 2007). Miles draws on a
narrative of a woman who experiences abuse to challenge male power over women,
and he advances an alternative model that stresses mutual cooperation between men
and women.
Sometimes women themselves narrate their experiences in ways that similarly
expose the ways that church teachings enshrined male power to keep them in abu-
sive relationships. For instance, Angela Hurst describes staying in an abusive rela-
tionship in college “because of church doctrine” that had emphasized how women
should focus on “pleasing husbands and being good wives” (2016). She stayed in the
relationship because she believed, “I was a woman, and I was supposed to defer to
him” (2016). Hurst concludes her piece by critiquing complementarianism directly
and celebrating alternative models of manhood: “Complementarian teachings left me
vulnerable to an abusive relationship. I thank God for a father whose values helped
pull my heart away from male headship theology. I thank God for a husband who
encourages me to reach my full potential, and who has never once raised his hand to
me” (2016). Hurst’s narrative of experiencing abuse both challenges male power that
was reinforced in her church and documents the possibility of shared power instead.
Similarly, Natalie Collins opens a recent blog post by explaining that her intro-
duction to egalitarianism was not because of its affirmation of women in leadership
in the church – but rather she discovered egalitarian theology “in the darkness of
the grave” (2015). As she recounts her husband’s physical violence against her that
led to the premature birth of one of her children and emotional trauma to the other,
Collins draws a direct connection to patriarchal religious teachings as she recounts
learning in church that a woman’s obligation was to submit to her husband: “Sub-
mission teaching had life-threatening consequences in my life. And then I began to
learn about egalitarian theology” (2015). Collins’ narrative of discovering egalitarian
theology that offers “real hope to women and girls” directly challenges beliefs and
teachings that subordinate women to men (2015). In so doing, a narrative of a woman
experiencing abuse is discursively centered to challenge male power. Indeed, these
narratives are offered in ways that reinforce CBE’s convictions about the importance
of challenging the hegemonic evangelical view of male headship and female submis-
sion. As CBE authors center women’s narratives of abuse, they also highlight the
importance of promoting an alternative to the dominant teaching in churches that
promotes men’s power and leaves women vulnerable to abuse.
1 3
CBMW: Pivoting Away from Women’s Experiences to Reinstate Male Power
In contrast to CBE, CBMW authors pay little direct attention to the experiences of
abused women. Only two out of 78 CBMW articles include a story of a woman
experiencing abuse. This scant attention to abused women’s experienced is shaped by
their attempts to maintain their hegemonic status. As they defend their teachings on
inherent gender difference against the idea that they are complicit in abuse, CBMW
authors focus attention on the abusive husband’s salvation and the responsibility of
wives to submit to their husbands without participating in abuse. In this process,
abused women’s experience is marginalized and male power is reinstated.
CBMW authors sometimes pivot away from abused women’s lived experience as
they defend their ideology from internal dissenters. CBMW author Heath Lambert
critiques an article by Steven Tracy, a professor of theology and ethics at Phoenix
Seminary, in which Tracy outlines the importance of placing limits on teachings about
wives’ submission in order to protect against abuse.10 Although Tracy identifies as a
“non-egalitarian evangelical” (2008, 288), Lambert, a biblical counseling professor
at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, systematically refutes Tracy’s argu-
ment. Lambert invokes CBMW’s beliefs in equal sinfulness: “Tracy does not make
clear that the failure of a wife to submit is just as sinful as the failure of a husband to
be a loving head” (Lambert 2010, 52). CBMW’s concern is that Tracy’s explanation
of how and why—from a complementarian position—teachings on wives’ submis-
sion to their husbands need to be qualified to prevent abuse will actually lead to wives
who “incur the displeasure of God because they hardly ever submit at all” (Lambert
2010, 52).
In fact, Lambert asserts that in Tracy’s quest to protect women from abuse, “Tracy
does not make clear that the authority of Christ not only limits but also supports and
strengthens a husband’s authority” (2010:52, 54). He explains how “wives should
submit to their husbands in everything except when doing so would be sinful” (54).
He clarifies, “Wives may not sin against Christ, against their husbands, against their
children, against their own consciences, or in any other way” (54). As he defends
complementarian theology, Lambert focuses attention not on an abusive husband’s
sinfulness, nor on a wife’s experience of abuse, but on a wife’s sinfulness. In that
process, abused women’s experience is marginalized to reinstate men’s power.
CBMW authors also direct women not to enable their husbands’ abuse. For
instance, Susan Hunt, the wife of a Presbyterian pastor, writes, “Church members
should be taught…that submission does not mean that a woman must submit to the
sin of abuse. Women should understand that it is wrong for a wife to enable a hus-
band to continue sinful practices. She has a responsibility to him to take this to her
pastor and to the elders of her church” (2008, 30). More recently, Jeremy Pierre, a
professor of biblical counseling at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, not only
insists that church authority should step in where a husband’s authority has failed
10
Tracy had written an article for CBMW in 2003 which explained why complementarians should care
about abuse and suggested a biblical model for understanding how wives’ submission and husbands’
authority should be rightly enacted to prevent abuse. But he then wrote two pieces for CBE in 2007 and
2009. Lambert critiques an article that Tracy published in 2008 in an evangelical theology journal not
sponsored by either organization.
1 3
(2013, 14), he also writes that abused wives bear responsibility: “Wives should be
reminded that by remaining quiet about abusive husbands they insulate them from the
loving correction they need to save their souls from destruction” (Pierre 2013, 14).
CBMW’s efforts to uphold teachings about wives’ submission to their husbands lead
them to emphasize women’s responsibility to their husbands. The lived experience of
an abused woman is not the focus here; rather, she is considered a possible instrument
of her abusive husband’s salvation.
Finally, sometimes CBMW authors explicitly deny connections between women’s
lived experience of abuse and patriarchal theology as they attempt to defend their
hegemonic status. For instance, CBMW publishes a book review of Ruth Tucker’s
Black and White Bible, Black and Blue Wife, which narrates Tucker’s experience
of her husband using headship theology to justify his abuse. In her review, CBMW
Council Member Mary Kassian shifts attention from Tucker’s experience to the asser-
tion that she has observed egalitarian marriages to have higher rates of abuse than
complementarian ones and that, “experience and emotions are an unreliable source
for debating” the assertion that headship theology contributes to abuse (2016, 51).
Kassian then critiques CBE for refusing to issue a joint statement against abuse in
the mid-1990s and calls for egalitarians and complementarians to “agree to disagree
on [Scriptural interpretation], and stand together against that which we both deplore”
(2016, 51). As she prioritizes the debate with egalitarians, Kassian denies the valid-
ity of a woman’s account of the way her husband had justified his abuse with bibli-
cal teachings on women’s subordination. CBMW’s defensive organizational posture
leads to this dismissal of an abused woman’s experience. Their hegemonic status is
threatened by the contention that their belief system contributes to abuse. As they
seek to defend the hegemonic status of their belief system, authors for CBMW mar-
ginalize narratives of abused women’s experiences to reinstate men’s power.
The organizational conflict over the hegemonic evangelical gender belief system
results in either centering or pivoting away from women’s experiences of abuse. CBE
authors center women’s experiences of abuse to challenge male dominance and pro-
mote a model of shared power. Their marginal belief system is depicted as a life-
line for women whose experience of the dominant subcultural teaching about men’s
authority has had life-threatening consequences. By contrast, CBMW defends their
hegemonic teachings against the idea that they contribute to abuse at the same time
as they uphold and promote teachings on gendered sinfulness and different gender
roles. In fact, rather than centering men’s abuse of power as the primary cause of the
sin of domestic abuse, they emphasize women’s responsibility still to submit and not
to enable their husbands’ abuse. Thus, in the process of defending their organizational
hegemony from the contention that it can lead to abuse, women’s experiences of
abuse are marginalized, and men’s power is reaffirmed and reinstated.
Conclusion & Implications
Through an examination of the ways in which varying religious beliefs are produced
through organizational conflict to shape evangelical organizations’ responses to
abuse, this study has sought to deepen our understanding of the ways that gendered
1 3
power is negotiated and exercised in the cultural production and reproduction of

religious belief systems. This analysis of complementarian and egalitarian organiza-
tions’ responses to evangelical women who experience abuse shows the influence
of different beliefs about gender on responses to domestic violence. But the fact of
varying beliefs about gender is not the only significant factor in explaining differing
responses to abuse; these cases also demonstrate the importance of attending to the
consequences of organizational conflict over religiously sanctioned male power in
the production and reproduction of cultural belief systems.
Indeed, the organizations’ responses to domestic violence are shaped by their
negotiation of a second-order hegemony that manifests within the evangelical sub-
culture. Attending to these dynamics of hegemony contributes to our knowledge of
the intersections of religion, gender, and abuse by illuminating how and why reli-
gious institutions’ responses to abuse can be shaped by and perpetuate gender hier-
archy. CBMW’s response to abuse is centered on the belief that they are promoting
an alternative both to secular culture and to evangelical feminism by claiming that
God-ordained male authority is benevolent and non-abusive. This claim is born out
in some empirical research that has found that religiously active men can exercise an
emotionally invested patriarchal religious model (Bartkowski 2004; Wilcox 2004).
But CBMW’s gender essentialist beliefs are also produced and reproduced as they
seek to defend their hegemonic organizational status within the subculture. This orga-
nizational posture of defending their beliefs and their subcultural status means that
CBMW cannot cede the possibility that teachings that promote men’s authority make
evangelical women vulnerable to abuse. Rather, authors pivot away from the lived
experience of women who are abused and center their concern instead on an abu-
sive husband’s salvation and women’s sinfulness. Defending their hegemonic belief
system from egalitarian allegations about patriarchal theology and abuse results in
reclaiming and reinstating men’s power and invalidating and marginalizing narra-
tives of women’s experiences.
This paper also contributes to our understanding of the social significance of insti-
tutions that advance a marginal set of cultural beliefs within a religious subculture.
CBE’s insistence that patriarchal theology contributes to the abuse of women sets
the terms of their debate with complementarians about the consequences of patri-
archy for women. Their interstitial position (Lindsay 2010) of being open to some
secular feminist insights while also drawing on the Bible to support their claims also
allows CBE to adopt a critical posture toward complementarianism. Indeed, CBE
authors produce beliefs in gender equality as a clear alternative to the hegemonic
belief system within evangelicalism, a belief system that they contend is harmful to
women. Challenging the hegemony of CBMW and promoting an alternative evan-
gelical belief system results in centering attention on women who are abused to chal-
lenge male power.
This analysis suggests multiple avenues for future research. More empirical
research is needed on the ways in which the institutional teachings analyzed here may
also be expressed in seminaries and religious congregations. We would also benefit
from continued empirical research on the ways in which religious teachings shape the
lived experiences of survivors of abuse. Indeed, the analysis here focuses on the role
of organizational conflict in the institutional production of beliefs, not the influence
1 3
of these beliefs on everyday practitioners. More empirical research is needed on the

possible impact of these beliefs for everyday evangelicals.
We could also examine whether similar patterns of internecine conflict are evi-
denced in other religious traditions.11 For instance, future research could investigate
non-evangelical religious cases in the U.S., or analyze evangelical religious contexts
in the Global South. This could shed light on whether some of the particular dynam-
ics of second-order hegemony and institutional conflict evidenced here are specific
to the evangelical subculture and its position within U.S. society, or whether these
processes are also seen in other religious contexts.
Finally, it is striking that there are not significant changes in the organizations’
responses to abuse during the time period analyzed. This consistency is likely related
to the organizations’ positioning. CBE, though advocating the marginal subcultural
belief system, has held significant influence over time through their insistence on the
complicity of headship teachings in abuse. CBMW’s steadfast refusal to concede that
their ideology could be used to condone abuse may stem from the fear that such an
admission about domestic violence could unsettle deeper understandings of gender
and erode their hegemonic status. Future research should investigate these dynamics
as they relate to contemporary social movements, especially the #ChurchToo move-
ment. We could also analyze the ways in which broader shifts in cultural beliefs about
sex and gender have implications for the role of gender beliefs in evangelical identity.
Attending to the role of both organizationally hegemonic and marginal groups should
be a central component of any of these possibilities for future study.
This paper underscores the benefits of addressing the “bifurcated conversations”
(Avishai & Irby 2017) that have characterized existing scholarship on gender and
religion and contributed to the “missing feminist revolution” in sociology (Acker
2006; Avishai & Irby 2017; Stacey & Thorne 1985; Stacey & Thorne 1996; see also
Charlton 2015). Renewed scholarly attention to the intersection of gender and religion
has tended to focus on the multiplicity and flexible negotiation of religious beliefs
about gender. While important, particularly for illuminating the dynamic relationship
between religion and gender systems, this also means that we have not paid sufficient
attention to the ways that gendered power is negotiated and enacted through the cul-
tural production and reproduction of religious beliefs. Unearthing both the flexibility
and the durability of gendered power in organizational discourse helps us to neither
oversimplify nor over determine the connections between religion and patriarchy.
It also helps to make visible both the social significance of advocates of a marginal
gender belief system within a subculture, as well as the ways that patriarchal religious
institutions can marginalize survivors of violence in order to defend and reclaim their
power.
Acknowledgements Many thanks to Mary Ellen Konieczny (in memoriam), Abigail Ocobock, Felicia
Song, Lisa Weaver-Swartz, and the members of the Gender Studies writing group at Westmont College
for their helpful comments on various iterations of this article. Thanks also to the anonymous reviewers
for their instructive feedback. Thanks to Magnolia Smith and Mackinzie Warne-McGraw for their able
research assistance. The author gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Center for the Study
of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame and the Provost’s Office at Westmont College.
11
I am grateful to one of the reviewers for suggesting this point.
1 3
References
Secondary Source Materials
Acker, Joan. 1992. From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology 21 (5): 565–569.
Acker, Joan. 2006. Introduction: The missing feminist revolution. Social Problems 53 (4): 444–447.
Ammerman, Nancy. 1987. Bible believers: Fundamentalists in the modern world. New Brunswick: Rut-
gers University Press.
Avishai, Orit. 2008. Doing religion in a secular world: Women in conservative religions and the question
of agency. Gender & Society 22 (4): 409–433.
Avishai, Orit, Afshan Jafar, and Rachel Rinaldo. 2015. A gender lens on religion. Gender & Society 29
(1): 5–25.
Avishai, Orit and Courtney Irby. 2017. Bifurcated conversations in sociological studies of religion and
gender. Gender & Society 31 (5): 647–676.
Barna Group. 2017. What Americans think of women in power. Available at https://www.barna.com/
research/americans-think-women-power/.
Barr, Beth Allison. 2021. The making of biblical womanhood: How the subjugation of women became
gospel truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.
Bartkowski, John P. 1997. Debating patriarchy: Discursive disputes over spousal authority among evan-
gelical family commentators. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 36 (3): 393–410.
Bartkowski, John P. 2001. Remaking the godly marriage: Gender negotiation in evangelical families. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Bartkowski, John P. 2004. The Promise Keepers: Servants, soldiers, and godly men. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Baugh, S. M. 1994. “The apostle among the Amazons.” Available at: www.cbmw.org/Resources/
Book-Reviews/I-Suffer-Not-a-Woman.
Brusco, Elizabeth E. 1995. The reformation of machismo: Evangelical conversion and gender in Colom-
bia. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
CBE. 2022. Mission and values. Available at: https://www.cbeinternational.org/content/cbes-mission.
CBMW. 2022. Mission and vision. Available at: https://cbmw.org/about/mission-vision/.
CBMW Council. 1997. Patriarchy and abuse: No direct link. CBMW News 2 (2): 10.
Chappell, Louise. 2006. Comparing political institutions: Revealing the gendered 'logic of appropriate-
ness.' Politics & Gender 2 (2): 223–235.
Charlton, Joy. 2015. Revisiting gender and religion. Review of Religious Research 57 (3): 331–339.
Chaves, Mark. 1997. Ordaining women: Culture and conflict in religious organizations. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Chong, Kelly. 2008. Deliverance and submission: Evangelical women and the negotiation of patriarchy in
South Korea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cochran, Pamela. 2005. Evangelical feminism: A history. New York: NYU Press.
Connell, R. W. 2002. On hegemonic masculinity and violence: Response to Jefferson and Hall. Theoretical
Crimonology 6 (1): 89–99.
Connell, R. W., and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept.
Gender & Society 19 (6): 829–859.
Creegan, Nicola Hoggard and Christine D. Pohl. 2006. Living on the boundaries: Evangelical women,
feminism, and the theological academy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic.
Cunradi, Carol B., Raul Caetano, and John Schafer. 2002. Religious affiliation, denomination homogamy,
and intimate partner violence among U.S. couples. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41
(1): 139–151.
Darwin, Helana. 2018. Redoing gender, redoing religion. Gender & Society 32 (3): 348–370.
Davidman, Lynn. 1991. Tradition in a rootless world: Women turn to Orthodox Judaism. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press.
Davis, John Jefferson. 2009. First Timothy 2:12, the ordination of women, and Paul’s use of creation nar-
ratives. Priscilla Papers 23 (2): 5–10.
DuMez, Kristin Kobes. 2020. Jesus and John Wayne: How white evangelicals corrupted a faith and frac-
tured a nation. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Ellison, Christopher. G, P. John, Bartkowski, and Kristin. L Anderson. 1999. Are there religious variations
in domestic violence? Journal of Family Issues 20 (1): 87–113.
Ellison, Christopher G., and Kristin L. Anderson. 2001. Religious involvement and domestic violence
among U.S. couples. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40 (2): 269–286.
1 3
England, Paula. 2010. The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society 24 (2): 149–166.
Fry, Nina. 2009. Raising girls to be godly women in a confused and conflicted culture. Journal of Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood, Fall, 24–36.
Gallagher, Sally. 2003. Evangelical identity and gendered family life. New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press.
Gallagher, Sally. 2004a. Where are the antifeminist evangelicals? Evangelical identity, subcultural loca-
tion, and attitudes toward feminism. Gender & Society 18 (5): 451–472.
Gallagher, Sally. 2004b. The marginalization of evangelical feminism. Sociology of Religion 65 (3):
215–237.
Gallagher, Sally, and Christian Smith. 1999. Symbolic traditionalism and pragmatic egalitarianism: Con-
temporary evangelicals, families, and gender. Gender & Society 13 (2): 211–233.
Gamson, Joshua. 1997. Messages of exclusion: Gender, movements, and symbolic boundaries. Gender &
Society 11 (2): 178–199.
Gerber, Lynne. 2015. Grit, guts, and vanilla beans: Godly masculinity in the ex-gay movement. Gender
& Society 29 (1): 26–50.
Giles, Kevin. 2018. Complementarian theology in crisis. In Eyes to see and ears to hear women. Min-
neapolis, MN: CBE International.
Griffith, R., and Marie. 2000. God’s daughters: Evangelical women and the power of submission. Berke-
ley: University of California Press.
Grudem, Wayne and John Piper. 1991. Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood: A response to
evangelical feminism. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Heath, Melanie. 2003. Soft-boiled masculinity: Renegotiating gender and racial ideologies in the promise
keepers movement. Gender & Society 17 (3): 423–444.
Ingersoll, Julie. 2003. Evangelical Christian women: War stories in the gender battles. New York: NYU
Press.
Irby, Courtney. 2013. 'We didn’t call it dating:' The disrupted landscape of relationship advice for evangeli-
cal Protestant youth. Critical Research on Religion 1 (2): 177–194.
Irby, Courtney. 2014. Dating in light of Christ: Young evangelicals negotiating gender in the context of
religious and secular American culture. Sociology of Religion 75 (2): 260–283.
Jankowski, Peter J, Steven J 2018. Sandage, Miriam Whitney Cornell, Cheryl Bissonette, Andy J. Johnson,
Sarah A Crabtree, and Mary L. Jensen. Religious beliefs and domestic violence myths. Psychology of
Religion and Spirituality 10(4):386–397.
Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod. 1999. Faithful and fearless: Moving feminist protest inside the church and
military. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kohlenberger, John R. 2002. What about the ‘Gender Accurate’ TNIV? Priscilla Papers 16 (2): 3–9.
Kroeger, Richard Clark and Catherine Clark Kroeger. 1992. I suffer not a woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy
2:11–15 in light of ancient evidence. Baker Academic.
Leamaster, Reid J., and Rachel L. Einwohner. 2018. ‘I’m not your stereotypical Mormon girl’: Mormon
women’s gendered resistance. Review of Religious Research 60: 161–181.
Levitt, Heidi M., and Kimberly N. Ware. 2006. Religious leaders’ perspectives on marriage, divorce, and
intimate partner violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly 30 (2): 212–222.
Lindsay, D. Michael. 2010. Organizational liminality and interstitial creativity: The fellowship of power.
Social Forces 89 (1): 163–184.
Mahmood, Saba. 2005. Politics of piety: The Islamic revival and the feminist subject. Princeton, NJ: Princ-
eton University Press.
Messerschmidt, James. 2018. Multiple masculinities. In Handbook of Sociology of Gender, eds. Barbara
J. Risman, Carissa M. Froyum, and William J. Scarborough, 143–153. New York: SpringerLink.
Miles, Todd. 2013. A review of Ronald W. Pierce, Partners in marriage and ministry. Journal for Biblical
Manhood & Womanhood 18 (1): 30–33.
Nason-Clark, Nancy. 1997. The battered wife: How Christians confront family violence. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press.
Nason-Clark, Nancy, Barbara Fisher-Townsend, and Catherine Holtmann and Stephen McMullin. 2018.
Religion and intimate partner violence: Understanding the challenges and proposing solutions. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Nesper, Kathy. Undated. Parenting as Partners. Available at: http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/
parenting-partners.
Perry, Samuel L. 2013. She works hard(er) for the money: Gender, fundraising, and employment in evan-
gelical parachurch organizations. Sociology of Religion 74 (3): 392–415.
1 3
Perry, Samuel L. 2020. The Bible as a product of cultural power: The case of gender ideology in the Eng-
lish standard version. Sociology of Religion 81 (1): 68–92.
Pew Research Center. 2020. A century after women gained the right to vote, majority of Americans see
work to do on gender equality. Available at https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/07/07/a-
century-after-women-gained-the-right-to-vote-majority-of-americans-see-work-to-do-on-gender-
equality/.
Pierce, Ronald W., and Groothius Rebecca Merrill. 2004. Discovering biblical equality: Complementarity
without hierarchy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Rao, Aliya Hamid. 2015. Gender and cultivating the moral self in Islam: Muslim converts in an American
mosque. Sociology of Religion 76 (4): 413–435.
Read, Jen’nan Ghazal and John P. Bartkowski. 2000. To veil or not to veil?: A case study of identity nego-
tiation among Muslim women in Austin, Texas. Gender & Society 14(3):395–417.
Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and J. Correll Shelley. 2004. Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective
on gender and social relations. Gender & Society 18 (4): 510–531.
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 2011. Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Rinaldo, Rachel. 2019. Obedience and authority among Muslim couples: Negotiating gendered religious
scripts in contemporary Indonesia. Sociology of Religion 80 (3): 323–349.
Risman, Barbara J. 2004. Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society
18 (40): 429–450.
Sharp, Shane. 2009. Escaping symbolic entrapment, maintaining social identities. Social Problems 56 (2):
267–284.
Smith, Dorothy. 1987. The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeastern
University Press.
Stacey, Judith and Barrie Thorne. 1985. The missing feminist revolution in sociology. Social Problems 32
(4): 301–316.
Stacey, Judith and Barrie Thorne. 1996. Is sociology still missing its feminist revolution? Perspectives:
ASA Theory Section Newsletter 18: 1–3.
Taylor, Verta and Nancy Whittier. 1992. Collective identity in social movement communities: Lesbian
feminist mobilization. In Frontiers in social movement theory, edited by Aldon D. Morris and Carol
M. Mueller. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Thomas, Jeremy N., and Daniel V.A. Olson. 2012. Evangelical elites’ changing responses to homosexual-
ity 1960–2009. Sociology of Religion 73 (3): 239–272.
Thomas, Jeremy N., and Andrew L. Whitehead. 2015. Evangelical elites’ anti-homosexuality narratives
as a resistance strategy against attribution effects. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 54 (2):
345–362.
Wilcox, W. Bradford. 2004. Soft patriarchs, new men: How Christianity shapes fathers and husbands.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Primary Source Materials
Asproth, Rachel. When staying in an abusive relationship is part of your theology. Mutuality (blog).
October 6, 2015, https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/mutuality-blog-magazine/
when-staying-abusive-relationship-part-your-theology.
Bayly, Timothy. 2000. Wife abuse: Evangelical feminists’ stalking horse. Journal for Biblical Manhood
and Womanhood 5(1).
Beck, James. 1995. Letter on abuse to CBMW, reprinted in CBMW News 1(1):3.
Bilezikian, G., W. Gasque, S. Gundry, G. G. Hull, C. Kroeger, J. A. Lyon, and R. Nicole. 1989. Men,
women, and biblical equality. Minneapolis, MN: Christians for Biblical Equality.
CBMW Council. 1987. Danvers Statement. Louisville, KY: Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
CBMW Council. 1995. CBMW issues abuse statement. CBMW News 1 (1): 3.
Collins, Natalie. What’s domestic abuse got to do with theology? Mutuality (blog), Octo-
ber 28, 2015, https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/mutuality-blog-magazine/
whats-domestic-abuse-got-do-theology.
Ford, G. 2007. Tolerating and staying: How a theology of female submission contributes to the prevalence
of women tolerating and staying in violent situations. E-Quality, 6(3).
Grudem, Wayne. 2009. Personal reflections on the history of CBMW and the state of the gender debate.
Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 14 (1): 12–17.
Grudem, Wayne. 2020. A letter from Wayne Grudem. September 28, 2020, https://cbmw.
org/2020/09/28/a-letter-from-wayne-grudem/.
1 3
Haddad, Mimi. Silent no more: Exposing abuse among evangelicals. Mutuality (blog), July
21, 2016, https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/mutuality-blog-magazine/
silent-no-more-exposing-abuse-among-evangelicals.
Heath, Elaine A. 1999. The Levite’s concubine: Domestic violence and the people of God. Priscilla Papers
13 (1): 10.
Hunt, Susan. 2008. Defenders of women. Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 13 (2): 23–29.
Hurst, Angela. When the church silences survivors. Mutuality (blog), July 26, 2016, https://www.cbeinter-
national.org/resource/article/mutuality-blog-magazine/when-church-silences-survivors.
Kassian, Mary. 2016. A review of Ruth A. Tucker, Black and white Bible, black and blue wife: My story
of finding hope after domestic abuse.Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 21 (2): 47–51.
Kotz, Rebecca. Beyond equality: Feminism and the power of naming. Mutuality (blog), Novem-
ber 14, 2016, https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/mutuality-blog-magazine/
beyond-equality-feminism-and-power-naming.
Lambert, Heath. 2010. A lack of balance: A review of Steven R. Tracy, “What does ‘submit in everything’
really mean? The nature and scope of marital submission.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Wom-
anhood. 15(1):51–54.
Lister, Rob. 2004. J. Lee Grady’s 25 tough questions about women and the church: A review article. Jour-
nal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 9 (1): 101–108.
Luimes, Wilma. Love and power or a powerful love? Mutuality (blog), June 4, 2016, https://www.cbeinter-
national.org/resource/article/mutuality-blog-magazine/love-and-power-or-powerful-love.
Miles, Al. 2007. What about all the men? E-quality 6(3).
Moore, Russell D. 2007. O.J. Simpson is not a complementarian: Male headship and violence against
women. Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 12 (1): 2–6.
Pierre, Jeremy. 2013. An overlooked help: Church disciplines and the protection of women. Journal for
Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 18 (1): 12–15.
Piper, John. Manhood and womanhood: Conflict and confusion after the fall. May 21, 1989, https://www.
cbmw.org/Resources/Sermons/Manhood-and-Womanhood-Conflict-and-Confusion-After-the-Fall.
Potter, James. 1996. ‘Rightly dividing the word of truth’ about domestic violence. Priscilla Papers
10(3):12–13.
Starke, John, and Jena Starke. Taste and see the goodness of the Lord Part II, January 22, 2009, https://
cbmw.org/2009/01/22/taste-and-see-the-goodness-of-the-lord-part-ii/.
Tracy, Steven. 2003. 1 Corinthians 11:3: A corrective to distortions and abuses of male headship. Journal
for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8(1):17–22
Tracy, Steven. 2008. What does ‘submit in everything’ really mean? The nature and scope of marital sub-
mission. Trinity Journal 29 (2): 285–312.
Tracy, Steven. 2009. Book Review of The macho paradox. Priscilla Papers 23 (1): 29.
VanLeuwen, Mary Stewart. 1994. When praying isn’t enough: Religion, prejudice and abuse. Priscilla
Papers 8(3):1–4.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
Authors and Affiliations
Meredith Whitnah1
Meredith WhitnahPhD
mwhitnah@westmont.edu
1
Westmont College, 955 La Paz Road, 93108 Santa Barbara, CA, United States
1 3

Evangelical Organizations Responses To Domestic Violence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evangelical Organizations Responses To Domestic Violence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Religious Research

Evangelical Organizations’ Responses to Domestic Violence:

Received: 2 August 2021 / Accepted: 26 April 2022

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

Gender, Religion, and Cultural Beliefs

Gender, Religion, and Domestic Violence

The negotiation of gendered power in the cultural production of competing religious

The Evangelical Gender Debate

The contemporary U.S. evangelical gender debate provides an important empirical

historical and contemporary boundary drawing in their production of competing gen-

Methods & Data

Gender Beliefs: Creation, Sin, and Submission

CBE: Equal Dignity, Different Power

CBMW: Equal Depravity, Different Essential Gender

Challenging or Defending Patriarchy

CBE: Critiquing Patriarchy, Promoting Equality

CBMW: Defending Male Power, Promoting Benevolent Patriarchy

Domestic violence is tragic enough, without it being used as a weapon in the

Implications for Attention to Abused Women

CBE: Centering Women’s Experiences to Challenge Male Power

CBMW: Pivoting Away from Women’s Experiences to Reinstate Male Power

Conclusion & Implications

power is negotiated and exercised in the cultural production and reproduction of

of these beliefs on everyday practitioners. More empirical research is needed on the

Authors and Affiliations

You might also like