2 of 4

Why are evangelical Protestant churches more hospitable to familism than are older Protestant denominations?

Since at least the 1970s, when we witnessed dramatic repudiations of familism in the culture at large, evangelical churches and parachurch ministries have made a concerted effort to emphasize their commitment to the family. They have spent more time talking about parenting, marriage, women's roles, and men's roles than other religious groups have. And they have definitely been more comfortable doing this than mainline Protestant churches like the Episcopal or Presbyterian churches. In general, mainline churches have tried to stress how tolerant they are of family diversity rather than hold up an ideal of family life that encompasses the intact, married family.

There are at least two major factors that help explain why these two groups responded so differently to the family changes of the last 40 years. First, they have different traditions of religious engagement with the culture at large. Evangelicals are committed to a tradition of biblical inerrancy that often leads them to take pride in butting heads with the culture at large, as they have on many family issues. By contrast, mainline Protestants are committed to a tradition that seeks to embody the spirit of the New Testament, which they see as loving and accepting of all God's people. This tradition has typically been more in line with how the culture defines love and acceptance, so mainline Protestantism has been more accepting of family change in recent years.

The second factor is sociological. Until the 1980s, most evangelicals hailed from largely working class and Southern backgrounds, whereas mainline Protestants hailed from primarily middle class and Northern backgrounds. These sociological differences in their backgrounds help explain why evangelicals were more skeptical of the cultural changes in the 1960s and the 1970s, and why mainline Protestants were more accepting of these changes.

What role does regular worship play in shaping a man's approach to family life?

Worship, and involvement in congregational activities more generally, is of paramount importance. In my book, I find that some of the worst fathers and husbands are men who are nominal evangelicals. These are men who have, say, a Southern Baptist affiliation, but who rarely darken the door of a church. They have, for instance, the highest rates of domestic violence of any group in the United States. They also have high divorce rates.

But evangelical and mainline Protestant men who attend church regularly are significantly more involved with their families. They are also much less likely to divorce than married men who do not attend church regularly.

Churchgoing allows these men to deepen their relationship with God, to encounter messages about their divinely ordained responsibilities to their family, and to have fellowship with other men who share their commitment to faith and family.

Thus, churches are one of the few institutions in American life that actually foster male familial involvement. Churches push men away from their preoccupations with work, leisure, and sports and toward the needs of their families. This is why I argue that religion domesticates men. It helps men focus on their families.

Churchgoing conservative Protestant men do less household work than their secular counterparts, but their conservative wives don't mind. Why?

Churchgoing evangelical Protestant family men do about an hour less of household labor per week than unaffiliated family men. But their wives, compared to the wives of unaffiliated men, are significantly more likely to feel their household labor is appreciated. Thus, though evangelical men do less housework than other husbands, they tend to be more grateful for their wives' housework. In other words, the average evangelical family man may, for instance, do slightly less laundry than the average secular family man, but the evangelical man appears to be more likely to thank his wife for the laundry she does.

next page... |  2 of 4

share this page

August 2004, Vol. 48, No. 8