Why The Religious Patriarchy Is So Afraid of Women Speaking

The religious patriarchy has actually been slowly expanding to include women, largely because women outside of it are so dangerous to it. Here's why.

Over the weekend, the religious Twitterverse exploded with the news that Erin Harding, a woman, had graduated with honors from the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary with a B.A. in Pastoral Ministry. Although Saddleback Church (the largest church in the SBC) actually ordained three women as pastors back in May 2021, it is important to note that this was mostly pro-forma since they were essentially just conferring the title of “pastor” on women who were already performing those roles in the church. A woman with a degree in Pastoral Ministry, however, would theoretically be trained to preach. And that is a whole different issue.

You see, the religious patriarchy is well aware of its image problem and has long been paying lip service to women “in leadership.” Referring, of course, to female Worship Leaders and “Children’s Directors” - you know, basically 21st century versions of choir directors and Sunday School teachers. The same positions women have always held.

Apparently the SBC even allowed a woman to speak at their annual meeting in 2020. That is, they allowed a woman to present a “word-based performance art” piece from a pre-approved manuscript. And that is the kicker. Men are (or can make themselves) comfortable enough with women being “in leadership” as long as they are under the authority of a man. What they cannot handle, what they cannot tolerate is a woman actually being allowed to preach.

Why?

In 1976, a young economics professor by the name of Muhammad Yunus visited some of the poorest households in Bangladesh. There, he discovered women supporting themselves and their families by making bamboo furniture. Unfortunately, in order to keep their small businesses afloat, they had to take out daily loans to buy the bamboo and repay them with alarming steep interest.

This kept them from ever “getting ahead” or being able to pull themselves out of poverty. Yunus lent the equivalent of $27.00 from his own pocket that day to 42 people, which allowed them to pay back their loans and be debt free. In 1983, he opened a fully fledged bank named Grameen Bank (Village Bank), which specialized in making small loans to the poor.

At the time, 99% of borrowers were men, largely because no bank manager would offer a loan to a woman. They would instead tell the women to bring their husbands. Yunus believed that the only way to alleviate poverty was through women but also found women would not take the money, deferring to their husbands instead. He told the students he had hired to make the loans:

“When a woman says she’s afraid of money, it’s not her voice, it’s history’s voice. The moment she was born the family was in mourning. She’s never welcome, just tolerated. That’s how she grew up. You can’t just undo that overnight.”

It took six years before Grameen Bank was issuing 50% of its loans to women.

“While we celebrated, we noticed something. The money we gave to women was more effective. It did more good to the family.”

The women the Grameen Bank lent to [were] very careful. They took no risks – starting small enterprises that would be sure to make them a tidy profit.

“The men were over-confident. But anything the women earnt, it went straight to the children. The women always wanted to build for the future. They were terrified they’d lose the money and then no one would trust them again. But the men, they wanted to enjoy the money now.”

By May 2008, Grameen Bank (GB) had lent over $7 Billion to 7.5-million borrowers, 97% of whom were women, with a repayment rate near 100%. This finding is key to understanding why the patriarchy is so threatened by women. Although Yunus may have been the first to figure out that investing in women is the best way to alleviate poverty, numerous studies since then have reached the same conclusions.

In 2018, American churches received at least $124.52 Billion in donations, with at least one church raking in a whopping $41 million. Out of that money, half is spent on salaries, which means that in 2018 alone, churches paid out more than $62 billion in salaries! What’s more, another 25% is spent on facilities, which means that churches spent more than $30 billion on their buildings just in 2018 alone. In contrast, most churches spend around 21% of their budget on missions and programs, which means they spend less money on what tithes and offerings are supposed to be used for in the first place than they do on their buildings!

It should also be noted, however, that Black churches only spend an average of 23% of their budgets on personnel and 25% of their budget on buildings. Which means they are probably using at least 50% of their tithes and offerings for what those monies were meant to be used for in the first place. What Jesus said was to “go into all the world and preach the gospel” he never said anything about “inviting your friends to church.” Tithes and offerings were meant to care for the poor and the sick, for widows and orphans, not to buy pastors multi-million dollar homes and private jets.

The reason women are so important to The Church is the same reason men are so afraid of them.

When Mark Driscoll resigned from Mars Hill in 2014, their 15 campuses were raking in $30 million a year. Prior to 2011, his salary was $267,500. It was bumped up to $564,615 in October 2011, which included a $200,000 a year housing allowance. In 2013, his executive pastor recommended his salary be raised to $650,000 a year, in addition to the $33,000 a year the church paid towards his retirement, the $13,314 it paid for his annual medical premium, $4,000 for the his cell phone and an additional “wellness stipend" of $6,000. Driscoll was also provided a team of assistants, including a research assistant. What is also important to note is that it is not illegal for board members to be paid a salary. Which really makes you wonder how much they might have been getting paid if they were willing to pay Driscoll close to $1M a year in salary and benefits.

During that same time, Driscoll was also being paid an average of $17,000 for speaking at leadership conferences at other mega-churches, at which he also sold his book. It is estimated that he also received a $400,000 book advance from his publisher for his book "Real Marriage." After being run out of one church and landing a cushy job at another megachurch, in late 2021 he ran a campaign to try and raise $200,000 for his personal ministry “Real Faith Ministries” in order to purchase more lighting and cameras, upgrade a soundboard and set up a new “worship studio.

So, in the middle of a global pandemic, during which millions of Americans could not afford to feed their families and were only still housed as the result of a nationwide eviction ban, this Mother Teresa of the Evangelical church raised $200,000 to buy even better tools to increase his own brand recognition. Notice that he isn’t raising money for the church he is a pastor of, but rather for his own “side gig.” Not that he isn’t perfectly capable of spending the church’s money frivolously as well. Such as when he authorized more than $2,500 of church money to pay for a staffer’s deluxe honeymoon.

It is important to understand that there are only about 10.8 million households in the U.S. with a net worth in excess of $1 million, which is less than 3% of the population. Various sources estimate Driscoll’s net worth to be around $2.5 - $3 million, which definitely puts him in the financial elite in the U.S. By far the largest source of his personal income and revenue is from tithes and offerings. It’s a little hard to understand how men who claim to follow a guy who said “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head” can justify million-dollar salaries, $80,000 luxury cars, yachts and jets.

While Driscoll’s salary may be a bit excessive, pastors in LA, Chicago and NYC make over $100K a year on average. And that is in addition to some of the most generous benefits packages in the U.S, which can include not only paid vacations but housing and car allowances as well. In fact, a pastor that did not even graduate high school makes, on average, around $42,000 a year, with pay packages ranging as high as $117,000.

On some level you have to believe these men know what they are doing is wrong, yet the last thing in the world they want is to be publicly called out for it. And that is why they are terrified of women being allowed to speak.

It is no secret that Conservatives (which comprise the overwhelming majority of Evangelical churches) are the most staunchly opposed to a $15 minimum wage. A $15/hr salary would net a worker about $26,000 a year, yet apparently pastors feel entitled to at least twice that if they didn’t even graduate high school and up to four or more times that much if they did. Which is perhaps why they are so loathe to speak out about income inequality, even though Jesus himself had quite a bit to say about it.

In her address, [World Bank Country Director for Botswana, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland, Ruth] Kagia provided numerous examples from around the world which showed that when money was put in the hands of women it led to a more sustainable economic situation for both their families and their countries’ economies.

The patriarchy have turned tithes and offerings into their own personal ATM’s and lined their pockets with billions of dollars. And what are they doing with all this money? One Instagram account called PreachersNSneakers went viral for showing (almost exclusively male) pastors wearing footwear ranging in price from several hundred to several thousands of dollars. The notion of pastors spending so much money on shoes while poverty continues to run rampant in the U.S. struck such a deep chord that the founder of the Instagram account - Ben Kirby - even wrote a book about the problem. So to say that Mark Driscoll is alone, or even among a very small group of pastors profiteering off tithes and offerings would be an extreme understatement.

Women may signal the end of their gravy train.

While pastors don’t usually control the church’s finances, it’s a pretty safe bet that as more and more women move into legitimate positions of leadership and authority (meaning not as just “worship leaders” and “children’s education directors”) they will almost invariably begin to call for greater accountability. Accountability is probably the thing the patriarchy fears most. Their main goal is to keep women out of pastoral roles entirely, but the next best option is if they can entice women to take the same paycheck and keep their mouths shut.

The problem, however, is the women they can’t bring into the fold. A very legitimate argument could be made that the reason Mark Driscoll has come under such intense scrutiny is thanks to the late Rachel Held Evans, who regularly called him out on his practices of bullying, not to mention calling out many of the hypocritical practices of the patriarchy in general.

It is very important to understand that Held Evans was neither an ordained minister nor employed by any church. On the one hand, that subjected her to a great deal of criticism from the patriarchy, from whom she had not been granted a “license to preach” but on the other hand, it also gave them nothing to take from her. They didn’t give her her platform in the first place and therefore, they had no authority to take it away. That gave her the freedom to speak her truth without interference and that is what terrifies the patriarchy.

It is very important for women to be extremely wary of accepting - or even seeking - the approval of the patriarchy.

Men have spent thousands of years now very subtly leading women to believe that we need their approval. As women are gaining more and more public approval, however, the patriarchy is also seeing the writing on the wall. That is why it is so important to understand that the patriarchy is perfectly content to hide behind women. They will do whatever they feel need to do to protect themselves. Always remember that the “bro code” is very, very real. Having a woman or two on a board not only gives them a convenient scapegoat if any of their decisions backfire, but it also allows them to present an image of having the approval of all women.

If the patriarchy feels pressured or obligated to admit women, they will always make sure to do it in such a way as to keep from granting them any real power. They are largely fine with boards consisting of a clear majority of men, such as ten men and two women. The deal is, the women get to keep their seat as long as they go along with the patriarchy, but also only as long as they keep their mouths shut and don’t speak out against them. The problem, however, is that a woman’s very presence on their board gives them the ability to claim that women are in agreement with their plans.

One phrase you will hear a lot in church circles and from the patriarchy in particular is “under authority.” They are very big on making sure that no one says anything without being given the “authority” or seal of approval of the patriarchy. This is particularly true of women. This is exactly why Rachel Held Evans was both so powerful and so dangerous to the patriarchy. She did not need their approval.

The patriarchy did not give Rachel Held Evans a platform, and therefore they could not take it away, which meant they also could not control her.

Many men have found out the cost of accepting a job at a church and women need to take heed as well. Although most people think of the pastor as being the head of the church, the real power in the majority of churches lies with the elder board. The most powerful person in almost any church is most often the head of the elder board. A man who is often even more powerful due to the fact that many people in the church may have no idea who he is.

It is very important to understand that a pastor is literally just an employee of the church. There are reasons their salaries are larger than similarly educated individuals in comparable professions. While churches themselves may want to believe it is because churches are so generous, that’s rarely the case. Their higher salaries are partly due to pastors being required to essentially to be “on call” at all times but it is also due to the fact that pastor’s wives are often considered (and expected) to be an unpaid employee of the church. A pastor’s salary is essentially meant to cover two employees. Lastly, however, it is a means of control. The more a pastor gets paid, the less likely he is to make waves or buck the elder board who ultimately controls the church.

It is also important to note that another reason many churches hire pastors with families is not so much a Biblical one but because it gives an elder board just one more means control. If losing their job means having to move their entire family, then they will once again be much more careful about making waves.

The exception to this, of course, is highly charismatic pastors like Mark Driscoll who bring in the big donors. This puts elder boards at a severe disadvantage because it is harder to control a pastor that has the approval of the biggest donors. In other cases, however, it is the church itself that is the big draw for big donors and they will keep attending and keep giving as long as the church hires a pastor that doesn’t make waves with them. Women have proven to be notoriously hard to control because they largely just don’t care about the same things men do.

A woman might be envious of another woman’s body, relationships, mothering skills or beautiful family, but we just aren’t really all that envious of each other’s paychecks. It is not generally from money that we receive our sense of worth and value, although as more women enter into male dominated fields, they are becoming more competitive around money to be sure. To men, however, money is everything. I mean, ironically, it’s “nothing” and everything all rolled up into one. There’s a line from Billions that sums it up best.

I don’t care about the money. Money is just a way of keeping score. - Bobby Axelrod

And there it is. There is a reason for the phrase “pissing contest.” It means that everything in a man’s life is a contest. They will literally turn peeing into a contest. So all the billions that they are pocketing is completely meaningless in and of itself - it’s just a way of keeping score. Meanwhile, millions of children live in poverty and women can’t even get formula for their babies, because men have to keep score!

And this is what women will speak out against, which is exactly what terrifies men. Men don’t want women to have a platform because they don’t want anyone calling them out on their hypocrisy and bullshit. The sad thing is, however, their lives might actually be far more fulfilling living for something other than a bigger house and a never ending stream of expensive shoes.

The one achilles heel the patriarchy has found women to have is their children, which is why the patriarchy is so keen on making sure all women have them. There is nothing the patriarchy hates more than a single woman with no children, because most women are far more like Mother Teresa than Mark Driscoll. And they aren’t afraid of calling men on their bullshit.

But here’s the thing the patriarchy are terrified of women figuring out.

You don’t need the permission or the approval of the patriarchy.

Whether you know it or not (and you probably don’t) all women speak with the same authority as Jesus.