There has been a surprising upward shift of Millennials and Gen Z Christians attending church more frequently than their preceding generations, along with a noticeable gender gap reversal of more men than women in attendance.
This uptick first broke through the public consciousness as a front-page article in the New York Times by religion reporter Ruth Graham, who reported on how Gen Z men were now more religious than women, focusing predominantly on Grace Church in Waco, Texas. What’s fascinating about her reporting is this reality: There is an overwhelming whiteness in the recent upsurge of church attendance, particularly among conservative white males.
As Ahmad Greene-Hayes posits, “The overwhelming whiteness and the increasing maleness of congregations like that of Grace Church isn’t an accident. It’s a selling point—especially for young white conservative Christian men who perceive themselves as embattled and disenfranchised.”
Our cultural moment influences the kind of leaders shaped in every sector of society, and faith communities are not exempt.
And with an increased audience of White American Christian males, it would be important for all of us in church leadership to pay attention to what this demographic expects and desires from their church leadership. It would be remiss of us to not plainly state that the influence of one of the most powerfully privileged category of people (White American Christian men) in our cultural moment influences the kind of leaders shaped in every sector of society, and faith communities are not exempt.
I want to highlight two aspects from this reality as we consider White American Christian men’s influential contribution to leadership, and how this impacts the church. (A necessary caveat: This is not an exhaustive list. Neither am I purporting that a singular cultural category of people are altogether good or bad; I am simply offering a warning for our current time).
There is a strong correlation between White American Christian men and White Christian nationalism.
Firstly, there is a strong correlation between White American Christian men and White Christian nationalism. Secondly, a male dominated leadership structure has a slippery downwards slope towards domineering leadership. Let me expand both of those points more thoughtfully...
1. Christian nationalism and conservative Christianity
Firstly, Christian nationalism is often (but not exclusively) closely connected politically to conservative Christianity. As Perry and Grubbs describe:
Recent research stresses the insight that even overtly “religious” language is racialized and thus claims about “Christian values” are laden with ethnocentric assumptions, particularly among White Americans. Following this line of thinking, studies have shown that Christian nationalism among White Americans seems to incline them toward views, policies, and candidates that preserve the racial status quo and/or protect White interests.
When we as Christian leaders consider what is shaping today’s White American Christian men, we cannot forego the fact that a version of Christian nationalism with the underpinnings of White supremacy is at bay. It captivates this cultural demographic far more than other racial identities; therefore, we ought to have eyes to assess the trappings of this temptation for maintaining power.
We must also consider who is damaged in its pursuit.
When something like race convinces people of a hierarchy or innate privilege that is worth preserving at all costs, then we must also consider who is damaged in its pursuit. With the increase of young White Christian men attending church on this side of the pandemic and in this cultural political moment for the U.S., it begs us to include in our discipleship of these young people the lived-in and lived-out value of an upside down kingdom.
We must specifically and intentionally equip the church to uphold and honor those on the margins, not holding on to power. And those on the margins are consistently not White American Christian men.
2. Favoring men compared to women
Domineering leadership comes at a disproportionate advantage for men compared to women.
Secondly, what is clear to organizational psychologists is that domineering leadership comes at a disproportionate advantage for men compared to women. Kim, Hsu, Newman, Harms, and Wood, in a group piece for the Journal of Research in Personality, describe this form of domineering leadership in men in the following manner:
Dominant personality, also sometimes known as social potency or assertiveness, refers to the propensity to act in a confident, forceful, and persuasive manner. Individuals higher in dominance tend to speak more and to have stronger influence over others in social situations.
However, the fact that dominance has robust conceptual and empirical associations with leadership produces an interesting paradox when considered in the context of gender. That is, men are typically higher on trait dominance than women, but women tend to be rated as being slightly more effective as leaders by their followers.
When we as Christian leaders consider what is shaping today’s White American Christian men, we cannot overlook the reality that a preference for a strong, assertive leadership style can quickly morph into the normality of domineering leadership. The Church is not exempt from this.
We must specifically and intentionally equip the church to quickly identify and uproot dominance over others.
With the increase in church attendance by White American Christian men, we as church leaders need to intentionally wrestle with how decisions will be made. It begs us to include in our discipleship of these young people the lived-in and lived-out value of how leadership is exemplified by Jesus through self-giving love, not self-invested ambition. Again, we must specifically and intentionally equip the church to quickly identify and uproot dominance over others.
What then is a wise pastoral response to this change in congregational membership? How should this reality frame how we as Christian leaders and pastors lead in this moment? In You Were Never Meant to Lead Alone: The Power of Sharing Leadership, I address exactly this.
The antidote to self-preserving and domineering leadership... takes a communal response.
The antidote to self-preserving and domineering leadership is not a moralistic or theological response. It takes a communal response. It takes the effective decision to share leadership within the church. I write:
Amid recurring news of domineering church leadership and failure of church leadership, most efforts to devise an antidote to this toxic leadership culture in the church have focused on the psychological health, soul care, and better sabbath techniques for the burned-out main leader. Fix the leader, heal the leader, or train the leader. It has left an extensive wake of communal harm, confusion and grief.
A better leadership model is needed to replace the weary, lonely, and domineering leadership in the church. There is also a need to contribute a real-life model of sharing leadership for the church today that includes both women and men, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color leaders, and the local cultural community.
Leadership always has to do with power.
Sharing leadership addresses this moment because leadership always has to do with power. Thus, sharing leadership means to effectively, intentionally, and strategically share power.
Sharing leadership will equip the church, including the rising tide of our beloved young people, and particularly Millennials and Gen Z White men, to imitate Jesus in his self-giving love for the flourishing of everyone around them.
And sharing leadership will equip Beren, my Gen Z twenty year old, half Korean, half White American Christian male son to imitate Jesus in self-giving love for the sake of his neighbors, classmates, co-workers, family and friends.
May this reality be ever increasingly so.
Originally published by the Missio Alliance Writing Collective. Republished with permission.
Eun Strawser is the co-vocational lead pastor of Ma Ke Alo o (which means “Presence” in Hawaiian), with missional communities multiplying in Honolulu, Hawaii, in addition to being a community physician and the co-founder of the ‘IWA Collaborative. She is the author of You Were Never Meant to Lead Alone (IVP, 2025) and Centering Discipleship: A Pathway for Multiplying Spectators into Mature Disciples (IVP, 2023). Prior to transitioning to Hawaii, Eun served as adjunct professor of medicine at the Philadelphia College of Medicine and African Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, after finishing her Fulbright Scholarship at the University of Dar es Salaam.
