In my last blog post I addressed the first of a number of reasons given by many of the younger generation for departing evangelical churches and who now claim the moniker “exvangelical.” The first reason concerned how exvangelicals reject the notion of a literal interpretation of the Bible. [To check out that blog click here] To summarize, the Bible should be taken literally only where the authors intended it to be taken literally.

Today, I want to respond to the exvangelical view on the roles of men and women. To exvangelicals the complementarianism within evangelicalism is oppressive to women. They believe any notion that men and women have different roles is misogynistic and that patriarchy is a bad word. There is actually much debate about this among evangelicals themselves, and the disagreement has led to many departing evangelical churches. However, the Bible is clear on this issue despite the cultural pressure to redefine roles. God’s creation design sets forth two fundamental truths:

1) Men and women share the dignity and value of being made in God’s image.

2) God has given specific roles to both sexes.

Complementarianism is the teaching that God created male and female equally in his image to reflect his glory in their own unique and distinct way. He designed the sexes to “complement” each other so that together that could become what they could not be apart. It has nothing to do with significance or worth but only of function and purpose.

In the home, wives are to be submissive to their husbands, and husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:24-25). Nowhere does the Bible teach that women should submit to all men or that they are inferior to men in any way. In the church, the New Testament specifically teaches that the position of pastors be filled by qualified men (and there is room for debate among evangelicals with regard to deacons). Such doctrine doesn’t set well in a society where lines of truth are increasingly blurred.

* * *

As I learn more about the exvangelical movement, the more I see it as a smorgasbord of malcontents, genuine victims, selfish brats, and apostates. Even the "exvangelicals" that have good reasons for leaving a particular church or institution often overreact by repudiating the entire theological foundation on which it was built. This is called the fallacy of composition, when one infers something is true about the whole (e.g., the entire church) based on the actions of one (e.g., a single church or person within that church).

Nevertheless, some exvangelicals see evangelicalism as a systemic problem. Blogger and podcaster Mark Hackett classifies the “dominant strain of white evangelicalism as rejecting gospel unity in favor of brutal conformity and hierarchal domination.” His material reflects an obvious resentment toward evangelicalism in general even though he most always labels it “white evangelicalism", implying it is not only abusive but also racist.

Dustin Messer, professor at the Dallas campus of Reformed Theological Seminary and The King’s College in New York City, stated that “the exvangelical temptation is to forever fixate, with great resentment, on what’s in the rearview mirror, giving little attention to the destination ahead.” The irony in all of this is that within the very evangelical tradition they reject is the answer to their hurt and disappointment, their anger and confusion, and their longing for love and acceptance.

It’s my hope and prayer that if they leave one church they’ll find another where they can grow in grace. To depart a bad situation to find refuge in a worse one is indeed a tragedy.