Against Such Things There is No Law: Evangelical College Students’ Perceptions of the Fruit of the Spirit as Primarily Gendered

Abstract

Although it is clear in Scripture that Christian spiritual growth includes the development of godly characteristics like those outlined in Galatians 5, anecdotal evidence suggests that people view some spiritual characteristics as primarily feminine in nature. In a series of three studies, evangelical Christian college students evaluated gender stereotypes interspersed with characteristics commonly described as “the Fruit of the Spirit” from Galatians 5. Despite a variety of methodological approaches, students consistently rated the Fruit of the Spirit as primarily descriptive of women. Implications of these results for broader issues of gender stereotyping and Christian life are discussed.

Keywords

gender stereotypes college student evangelical

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. (Galatians 5:22–23, NASB)

Psychological research consistently finds that men and women are described using different stereotypical terms. Williams and Bennett (1975) asked students to determine whether a list of characteristics best described men or women and found that there were clear differences between characteristics ascribed to men (e.g., adventurous, assertive, stable) and characteristics ascribed to women (e.g., affectionate, dependent, emotional). Despite changes in society, the basic ways in which people think about men and women have not shifted substantially. Those same sorts of characteristics are still categorized based on gender, both currently (Haines, Deaux, & Lofaro, 2016) and cross-culturally (Williams & Best, 1990). We still categorize many traits as primarily male or female.

These stereotypical terms then serve as precursors for expected behavior patterns. That is, not only are these characteristics stereotypically identified with one sex or the other, they also form a basis for expectations of appropriate behaviors and gender roles. These two functions of stereotypes are outlined by Prentice and Carranza (2002), who categorized stereotypes as descriptive (what is) vs. prescriptive (what ought to be). These two differ in that descriptive stereotypes identify behaviors and traits that are perceived to be frequently occurring for a particular group, whereas prescriptive ones are associated with what is expected in order to be a good member of that group. When group members do not display characteristics consistent with prescriptive stereotypes, they can be evaluated negatively for not fitting with what is expected. For example, Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, and Tamkins (2004) demonstrated that women’s personalities were evaluated more negatively than equally successful males when they violated workplace expectations, particularly by succeeding in male gender-typed occupations.

Several lines of evidence suggest that religious conviction, particularly conservative religiosity, may both reflect traditional gender roles and stereotypes and serve to reinforce those stereotypes. For example, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (1988) issued the Danvers Statement, outlining beliefs about traditional gender roles that they argued were supported by Scripture in such a clear fashion as to make the roles inviolable. Specifically, the Danvers Statement argues that men and women are fundamentally different in role, originating from differences at creation. In these basic roles, men should lead in the home and church, and women should submit in the home and church. Behaving in ways that violate these roles is not considered only culturally nonnormative, but a threat to biblical authority and scriptural teaching. Although the Danvers Statement was issued more than thirty years ago, many still consider it to be a correct and prescriptive statement regarding men’s and women’s roles in the home and the church.

The influence of these types of statements can be seen in subsequent recommendations about how men and women should act in the church (e.g., Grudem, 1995), which then translate into broader arenas of life. For example, in several recent studies of female evangelical Christian college students, the majority of respondents identified with more complementarian or traditional gender role beliefs that influenced their expectations about their home, work, and religious life (Bryant, 2006; Colaner & Giles, 2008; Colaner & Warner, 2005). Specifically, female students were less likely to believe they could have leadership roles within campus organizations (Bryant, 2006). They also believed that their future plans should not include graduate school or full-time employment after completing an undergraduate degree. Instead female participants reported they should have limited service in the church and limited authority in the home, where their husbands would lead (Colaner & Warner, 2005).

These lines of research are consistent with work regarding religiosity and scriptural literalism. Scriptural literalism is a tendency to see the Bible as unchanging and infallible, along with an assumption that the Bible must be interpreted literally to be understood correctly (Burn & Busso, 2005). It is specifically found in conservative and fundamentalist expressions of faith and serves as a framework not only for interpreting Scripture, but also for interacting with current cultural and social phenomena. From a literalist perspective, if Scripture is unchanging, then a Christian response to the world should not deviate from traditional approaches either. Scriptural literalism has been related to a variety of social orientations in conservative Christian denominations, including attitudes toward child discipline, pornography, and abortion (Bartkowski & Wilcox, 2000; Hoffman & Bartkowski, 2008).

Hoffman and Bartkowski (2008) demonstrated that conservative Protestant women are more likely to hold literalist interpretations of Scripture than men. These literalist beliefs also impact the ways in which women see themselves and their place in the world. Cassesse and Holman (2016) found that women who endorsed scriptural literalism were less likely to see sexism and discrimination as current problems, and were also less likely to participate in the political process. Scriptural literalism does not just influence women, however. Burn and Busso’s (2005) research linked scriptural literalism to benevolent sexism for both men and women, and specifically to protective paternalistic attitudes in which men must be protectors and providers for women (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Taken together, these lines of evidence suggest that people with conservative religious beliefs founded on a literal interpretation of Scripture use those beliefs to support traditional gender roles.

It is also possible that traditional beliefs about gender roles not only result from scriptural literalism, but also stem from a broader understanding of how one should relate with God. Kent and Pieper (2019) described intimate and secure attachment styles with God as a “measure of felt closeness to God as well as a perception that God is responsive and available” (p. 233). Such a pattern of having a secure attachment to God related to a variety of behaviors, including Bible study, prayer, and church attendance, that they likened to the proximity-seeing behaviors a young child engages in with a caregiver. Kent and Pieper further related secure attachment to God to higher biblical literalism. From their perspective, belief in a responsive and close God is reinforced by a literal view of Christian Scripture, where God intimately knows and acts on behalf of his people. Although no research to date explores this question, taken with Burn and Busso’s (2005) work, this suggests that people who are securely attached to God might also be more likely to display traditional gender beliefs.

Despite the ways in which people have used religion to reinforce traditional gender roles, there are some aspects of Christian life that are not primarily gendered. For example, some Christians suggest that there are clear ways in which gender-neutral behaviors are preferred (e.g., Banks, 2015; Christians for Biblical Equality, 1989). From this perspective, although Christian Scripture may address different behaviors for men and women, there are also statements about behavior and attitudes that all Christians, regardless of sex, should embrace. One statement of these characteristics is described as the “Fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 5. It serves as a basic summary of characteristics that are evidence of a person growing in Christian faith. Because they are described as a part of the ideal Christian life, there is no explicit connection to gender roles. These terms are expected to describe both men and women who attempt to live out their Christian faith. Indeed, Billy Graham (2011), a proponent of more conservative gender roles, wrote that the Fruit of the Spirit should “characterize the life of every Christ-born child of God.”

Anecdotally, the Fruit of the Spirit may not be considered gender-neutral characteristics for Christians to achieve. Van Leeuwen (2002) writes that as part of a classroom exercise, a colleague inserted the Fruit of the Spirit into a standard list of masculine and feminine characteristics, and typically found that both male and female students rate these presumably neutral characteristics as feminine. If confirmed more systematically, this suggests that views of Christian spirituality are heavily influenced by cultural stereotypes of masculine and feminine, with the Fruit of the Spirit evaluated in line with Williams and Bennett’s (1975) more emotional and dependent characteristics. This would imply that spiritual development training might first need to disentangle gender stereotypes from spiritual growth.

On the other hand, another possible explanation for any gender stereotypical ratings of the Fruit of the Spirit may be a result of a methodological artefact. It may be that requiring students to choose whether a neutral characteristic is masculine or feminine artificially inflates gendered ratings of the words. That is, people might actually understand them as neutral characteristics to which all Christians should aspire, but in a research context, may feel compelled to respond using the terms of the study. Cameron, Alvarez, Ruble, and Fuligni (2001) found that requiring children to evaluate classmates using a forced-choice format artificially inflated group differences rather than reflected an underlying reality of differences in their classmates. Cameron et al. noted that the forced-choice format typically used in group stereotyping research to assess children’s prejudice requires them to assign characteristics either to the ingroup or to the outgroup, without allowing for the characteristics to belong to members of both groups. They found that when children were allowed to distribute characteristics to their ingroup, to the outgroup, to both groups and to neither group, much of the biased assignment of characteristics disappears. This suggests that the forced-choice methodology employed in Van Leeuwen’s (2002) anecdote may have been an artefact. It may not be that students strongly believe that the Fruit of the Spirit are gendered, but that when required to assign them to a category of “male” or “female,” they complied.

This raises several questions. First, do evangelical students systematically rate neutral characteristics as embodied in the Fruit of the Spirit in a gendered way? Second, is this an artefact of a forced-choice methodology? That is, do evangelical students demonstrate a reduction in biased categorization of neutral characteristics when given the option of attributing the characteristics to both males and females? If so, this would indicate that evangelical students recognize the neutrality of these spiritual characteristics. Another point to consider, however, if ratings reveal a gendered understanding of the characteristics present in the Fruit of the Spirit, regards how men might ultimately respond. That is, if men and women perceive such traits as primarily female, men may have difficulty resolving a perceived tension between their male sex role and the expectations of their faith to embody the characteristics that would represent their Christlikeness.

An additional question concerns whether larger Christian beliefs relate to participants’ understandings of the Fruit of the Spirit as primarily neutral or gendered. Secure attachment to God, previously linked to an increase in biblical literalism (Kent & Pieper, 2019), might also be linked to an increase in traditional views of gender as participants who have high views of biblical literalism are also more likely to report benevolent sexist beliefs (Burn & Busso, 2005).

A final question to be addressed if in fact there are gender-stereotypical categorizations of the Fruit of the Spirit is whether evangelical students understand the characteristics as reflective of past interactions with men and women, or whether they understand them as primarily gendered expectations of how men and women should be. That is, are these stereotypes primarily descriptive in nature (how things are), or are they prescriptive (how things should be)? If they are seen as primarily descriptive in nature, they may be making judgments based on their recollection of prior experience. If these characteristics are seen as primarily prescriptive, this may indicate beliefs about how each gender should best express spirituality, raising further questions regarding the spirituality of those who do not conform to these gendered expectations.

In order to examine these questions more fully, the present effort focused on three separate examinations of college student ratings of the masculinity and femininity of the Fruit of the Spirit. In the first study, students completed a forced-choice format, where the Fruit of the Spirit terms were interspersed with words from Bem’s Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974). They identified each word as being either masculine or feminine. This study was an attempt to systematically investigate the Van Leeuwen’s (2002) anecdote in which students considered the Fruit of the Spirit to be feminine characteristics. If students were more influenced by standard cultural gender stereotypes, students should evaluate the Fruit of the Spirit terms as more feminine than masculine. In the second study, students completed a continuous rating format, using the same list of words as described above. The continuous rating scale required students to rate each word twice for both how masculine and how feminine they perceived the word to be, with each rating on a 5-point Likert-type scale. If the previously reported anecdote was a methodological artefact, when given the opportunity to rate the Fruit of the Spirit as both masculine and feminine, ratings should be more neutral. In both of these studies, attachment to God was assessed, assuming that people with secure attachment to God would be more likely to view the Fruit of the Spirit as female-gendered rather than as neutral.

In the third study, students were asked to identify characteristics of their ideal male and ideal female in an attempt to evaluate the prescriptive nature of stereotypes. If the characteristics of Christian spirituality outlined in Galatians 5 were seen as more of a prescriptive stereotype for females, then more characteristics from the Fruit of the Spirit would be identified as belonging to the ideal female than the ideal male.

Study 1

Method

Participants

A total of 33 undergraduate students from a Christian liberal arts college in Western Pennsylvania participated. They were enrolled in a variety of psychology courses, and participated for course credit. The sample was primarily female (N=25) and Caucasian (N=28), consistent with demographics of the psychology major at the institution.

Materials and procedures

Surveys were constructed that were based on Bem’s (1974) Sex Role Inventory. Bem’s instrument consisted of 20 stereotypically masculine, 20 stereotypically feminine, and 20 neutral characteristics. For the purposes of the present effort, the 9 Fruit of the Spirit were changed to the following adjectives: loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlled. These words were subsequently inserted in place of 9 of the neutral characteristics in Bem’s original instrument. Participants rated each of the 60 characteristics as Masculine if they believed the characteristic was culturally more associated with males and Feminine if they believed the characteristic was culturally more associated with females. Items were scored so that higher scores indicated a categorization of “feminine.”

Participants also completed Beck and McDonald’s (2004) Attachment to God Inventory to provide a measure of their spiritual Surveys to provide a measure of their spiritual orientation. Beck and McDonald’s inventory assumes that God can serve as an attachment figure. It categorizes respondents in terms of anxious and avoidant attachment styles in their relationship to God, from which a secure attachment style can be understood as low avoidant and low anxious attachment.

All surveys were administered online through a SurveyMonkey account.

Results and discussion

Data reduction

For each of the 60 terms, a score was assigned for whether participants indicated they saw the word as masculine (assigned 1) or feminine (assigned 2). The words perceived as most masculine (with 33 identifications as masculine) were “athletic” and “competitive.” Other words ranked highly masculine (32 identifications as masculine) were “masculine” and “aggressive.” The words perceived as most feminine (32 identifications as feminine) were: loving, affectionate, feminine, sensitive to others’ needs, and loves children.

In order to determine participants attachment to God style, median splits were conducted on their anxious (Mdn = 59.00) and avoidant (Mdn = 49.00) attachment scores. Secure attachment (n = 10) was designated for participants who had both low anxious attachment and low avoidant attachment. All other participants were designated as having insecure attachment (n = 23).

Hypothesis tests

In order to examine different frequencies of assigning traits as masculine or feminine, χ² tests were conducted. Participants generally evaluated the characteristics designated masculine by Bem as masculine (see Table 1) and the characteristics designated feminine by Bem as feminine (see Table 2), indicating they perceived the stereotypical words consistently with previous research.

Table 1.

Frequencies of Identification of Masculinity and Femininity of Bem’s Masculine Characteristics.

Characteristics	Masculine	Feminine	χ²
Characteristics	f	f	χ²
Self-reliant	26	7	10.94**
Defends own beliefs	22	11	3.67
Independent	25	8	8.76**
Athletic	33	0	33.00**
Assertive	29	4	18.94***
Strong personality	18	5	0.27
Forceful	30	3	22.09***
Analytical	24	9	6.82**
Leadership ability	28	5	16.03***
Willing to take risks	30	3	22.09***
Makes decisions easily	28	5	16.03***
Self-sufficient	25	8	8.76**
Dominant	31	2	25.49***
Masculine	32	1	29.12***
Willing to take a stand	28	5	16.03***
Aggressive	32	1	29.12***
Acts as a leader	30	3	22.09***
Individualistic	20	13	1.49
Competitive	33	0	33.00***
Ambitious	23	10	5.12*

Note. Participants selected only masculine or feminine as descriptors.

p < .05.

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Table 2.

Frequencies of Identification of Masculinity and Femininity of Bem’s Feminine Characteristics.

Characteristics	Masculine	Feminine	χ²
Characteristics	f	f	χ²
Yielding	7	26	10.94**
Cheerful	6	27	13.36***
Shy	12	21	2.45
Affectionate	1	32	29.12***
Not susceptible to flattery	8	25	8.76**
Loyal	7	26	0.27
Feminine	1	32	29.12***
Sympathetic	2	31	25.49**
Sensitive to others’ needs	1	32	29.12***
Understanding	7	26	10.94**
Compassionate	2	31	25.49***
Eager to soothe hurt feelings	8	25	8.76**
Soft-spoken	5	28	16.03***
Warm	6	27	13.36***
Tender	4	29	18.94***
Gullible	7	26	10.94**
Childlike	26	7	10.94**
Does not use harsh language	5	28	16.03***
Loves children	1	32	29.12***

Note. Participants selected only masculine or feminine as descriptors. Gentle appears in Bem’s original list and in the Fruit of the Spirit. For clarity, it is only considered as a Fruit of the Spirit.

p < .05.

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Of greater interest, however, were the participants’ ratings for the Fruit of the Spirit characteristics, which according to Christian doctrine ought to be viewed as neutral. The participants consistently described the Fruit of the Spirit as feminine characteristics rather than masculine or neutral characteristics (see Table 3), with one exception. The characteristic “self-controlled” showed no difference in frequency of participants rating it masculine or feminine. The fact that the participants consistently rated the Fruit of the Spirit as feminine suggests that they perceived the Fruit of the Spirit different from masculine or neutral words. This indicates that the majority of the Fruit of the Spirit, when measured in a forced-choice format, were not evaluated by students as neutral, but as primarily feminine in nature.

Table 3.

Frequencies of Identification of Masculinity and Femininity of the Fruit of the Spirit.

Characteristic	Masculine	Feminine	χ²
Characteristic	f	f	χ²
Loving	1	32	29.12**
Joyful	4	29	18.94**
Peaceful	5	28	16.03**
Patient	9	24	6.82*
Kind	4	29	18.94**
Good	8	25	8.76*
Faithful	9	24	6.82*
Gentle	3	30	22.09**
Self-controlled	14	19	0.76

Note. Participants selected only masculine or feminine as descriptors.

p < .01.

p < .001.

Attachment style had no bearing on categorizing Fruit of the Spirit as feminine or masculine. χ² tests for independence were conducted for each of the Fruit of the Spirit comparing categorization frequencies of the characteristics as masculine or feminine for people who reported secure attachment and for people who reported insecure attachment. None of the tests demonstrated any significant differences.

This suggests that rather than representing a set of characteristics that all Christians might aspire to, the Fruit of the Spirit were seen as feminine characteristics that do not equally describe males. This is consistent with Van Leeuwen’s (2002) anecdotal report, and suggests that evangelical students categorized spiritual characteristics in a gendered way. However, recall that a primary concern about this approach is evidence from other contexts indicating that forced-choice formats overemphasize perceived differences (Cameron et al., 2001). Study 2 was conducted in order to examine whether students’ perceptions of the Fruit of the Spirit as primarily feminine was an artefact of this forced-choice format.

Study 2

Method

Participants

A total of 29 undergraduate students from a Christian liberal arts college in Western Pennsylvania participated. They were enrolled in a variety of psychology courses, and participated for course credit. The sample was primarily female (N=20) and Caucasian (N=23), consistent with demographics of the psychology major at the institution.

Materials and procedures

The same word list as used in Study 1 was used here. However, in this version, participants rated each of the 60 characteristics twice. The first rating asked them to consider how masculine they perceived the characteristic to be on a 1 to 5 Likert-type scale, with higher values indicating greater masculinity. The second rating asked them to consider how feminine they perceived the characteristic to be on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher values indicating greater femininity. In line with the work reported in Cameron et al., it was expected that requesting both feminine and masculine ratings of the terms would allow participants to indicate that some words were neither masculine nor feminine, but were instead neutral.

Participants also completed Beck and McDonald’s (2004) Attachment to God Inventory. As in Study 1, the survey was administered online using SurveyMonkey.

Results and discussion

Data reduction

For each of the 60 terms an overall Femininity–Masculinity difference score was derived by subtracting participants’ masculinity ratings for a word from their femininity ratings. Thus, a positive score meant that participants evaluated that word as more feminine, a zero-order score indicated that participants evaluated the word as equally feminine and masculine, and a negative score meant that participants evaluated that word as more masculine. Subsequently, difference scores were generated for four categories of words: words identified as “masculine” by Bem, words identified as “feminine” by Bem, words identified as “neutral” by Bem, and the nine characteristics in the Fruit of the Spirit. Bem’s Sex Role Inventory (1974) used the word “gentle” in its stereotypical feminine trait list. This is also one of the Fruit of the Spirit. In order to clarify issues, I calculated an adjusted femininity score, removing “gentle” from the feminine characteristics and leaving it with the Fruit of the Spirit (Appendix 1).

In order to determine participants’ attachment to God style, median splits were conducted on their anxious (Mdn = 57.00) and avoidant (Mdn = 48.00) attachment scores. Secure attachment (n = 10) was designated for participants who had both low anxious attachment and low avoidant attachment. All other participants were designated as having insecure attachment (n = 19).

Hypothesis tests

Participants rated the characteristics that Bem identified as masculine as more masculine (M = −0.96, SD = 0.85) than a neutral score of 0 (t(28) = 6.15, p < .001). They also rated characteristics Bem identified as feminine as more feminine (M = 0.98, SD = 0.73) than a neutral score of 0 (t(28) = 7.26, p < .001). This indicates that the participants viewed the gender-stereotypical terms in ways consistent with societal expectations about gender.

The critical question, however, concerned the ratings participants assigned to the Fruit of the Spirit. See Table 4 for the masculinity and femininity ratings for each of the Fruit of the Spirit. On average, participants evaluated the Fruit of the Spirit as more feminine (M = 0.79, SD = 0.78) than a neutral score of 0 (t(28) = 5.44, p < .001; see Figure 1). This suggested that participants, when given an opportunity to use a continuous rating scale to allow for more neutral ratings of the Fruit of the Spirit, still think of the spiritual characteristics as more feminine than neutral or masculine.

Table 4.

Ratings of Masculinity and Femininity Difference Scores of the Fruit of the Spirit.

Characteristic	Femininity–Masculinity
Characteristic	M (SD)
Loving	3.31 (1.20)
Joyful	2.90 (1.21)
Peaceful	2.83 (1.80)
Patient	2.90 (1.18)
Kind	3.17 (1.14)
Good	3.17 (1.07)
Faithful	3.76 (1.24)
Gentle	3.03 (1.27)
Self-controlled	3.59 (1.09)

Note. Difference scores were calculated so that positive scores indicated more feminine ratings and negative scores indicated more negative ratings.

Figure 1.

Average Difference Scores for Masculine and Feminine Characteristics and Fruit of the Spirit.

This significant difference did not indicate that the Fruit of the Spirit are seen as feminine to the same degree as Bem’s stereotypical characteristics, however. An ancillary analysis of the difference scores revealed that the Fruit of the Spirit were significantly closer to a neutral rating of 0 than Bem’s feminine characteristics (t(28) = 3.46, p = .002). However, participants rated the Fruit of the Spirit as more feminine than the actual neutral characteristics (M = 0.50, SD = 0.45, t(28) = 2.97, p = .006). Thus, students readily identified the characteristics of the Fruit of the Spirit as feminine, but as slightly less feminine than traditional stereotypes of femininity.

These analyses did not support the hypothesis derived from Cameron et al. (2001). Recall that their work suggested that a forced-choice format falsely inflated stereotypical ratings. However, in the research reported here, there was not a clear reduction in stereotypical ratings. Although there may be some modification in the use of stereotypes, the Fruit of the Spirit were still rated as more feminine than masculine, and when required to reflect on the masculinity of the characteristics of the Fruit of the Spirit, participants did not identify them as masculine, but only as slightly more neutral than the most stereotypically feminine characteristics.

Attachment to God had no clear bearing on rating the Fruit of the Spirit as feminine or masculine. Respondents who reported secure attachment to God rated the Fruit of the Spirit as feminine (M = 0.71, SD = 0.90) as did respondents who reported an insecure attachment to God (M = 0.84, SD = 0.73, t(27) = 0.37, p = 0.36).

Taken together Study 1 and Study 2 suggest that in descriptive terms, the Fruit of the Spirit were understood by participants as primarily feminine in nature. Even when given the opportunity to identify the characteristics as descriptive of males, participants failed to do so. These two studies presented a relatively robust view of how the Fruit of the Spirit connect to the descriptive aspect of gender stereotypes. These neutral spiritual characteristics were considered to be largely feminine by evangelical college students. These two studies do not address the prescriptive aspect of stereotypes outlined by Prentice and Carranza (2002). The third study attempts to understand whether or not participants view the Fruit of the Spirit as communicating something essential about how men and women should behave.

Study 3

Method

Participants

A separate sample of 51 undergraduate students from a Christian liberal arts college in Western Pennsylvania participated. They were enrolled in a variety of psychology courses, and participated for course credit. One student’s scores were not included in the analysis for failing to understand the instructions of the study. The sample was primarily female (N=37), consistent with demographics of the psychology major at the institution.

Materials and procedures

The same word list used in Studies 1 and 2 was used here. However, in this version, participants rated each of the 60 characteristics keeping in mind either their “ideal” male or “ideal” female. As they reviewed the 60 traits, they were asked to identify the top ten characteristics that would meet that ideal. Frequency of appearance of Fruit of the Spirit in those top ten characteristics was then tabulated. The survey was administered using a paper-and-pencil format.

Results and discussion

On average, participants were more likely to select Fruit of the Spirit characteristics as part of their ideal for females (M = 2.44, SD = 1.25) than they were to select Fruit of the Spirit as part of their ideal for males (M = 1.74, SD = 1.36; t(48) = 1.91, p = .031, one-tailed; see Figure 2). Not all participants selected a Fruit of the Spirit in their description of their ideal male or female; however, fewer ideal female descriptions had no Fruit of the Spirit (n = 2) than ideal male descriptions (n = 5). See Table 5 for frequencies of inclusion of Fruit of the Spirit in the ideal male and ideal female descriptions.

Figure 2.

Average Number of Fruit of the Spirit Characteristics Describing the “Ideal” Male or Female.

Table 5.

Frequencies of Fruit of the Spirit Designated as Part of a Masculine or Feminine Ideal.

Characteristic	Ideal Male	Ideal Female
Characteristic	f	f
Loving	9	17
Joyful	2	4
Peaceful	1	3
Patient	6	9
Kind	4	7
Good	5	3
Faithful	2	7
Gentle	3	7
Self-controlled	10	7

Taken together, these data suggest that participants’ ideals for men and women were consistent with participants’ evaluations of characteristics in Studies 1 and 2, with some characteristics from the Fruit of the Spirit being more pertinent to their idea of female than the ideal male.

Ancillary analysis

In terms of the prescriptive nature of stereotypes, a secondary analysis was conducted to examine whether specific characteristics of the Fruit of the Spirit were more likely to be seen as ideal for males or females. Only two characteristics were statistically more likely to appear for the ideal female: Loving (χ² (1) = 5.13, p = .01, one-tailed) and Faithful (χ² (1) = 4.81, p = .02, one-tailed). No characteristics were more likely to appear for the ideal male. This suggests that in terms of gender stereotypes, any prescriptive elements of the Fruit of the Spirit only appear for women, and further only appear on two dimensions. Thus, there may be limits on how readily the evangelical college students consider the Fruit of the Spirit to be prescriptive elements of what men and women should be; for most of the characteristics, they are no more likely to be seen as important to being an ideal male or female.

General discussion

Christian spiritual development, the process of being more consistently conformed to Christ’s character and behavior, is a goal to be undertaken by all Christians. Taken together, the three studies presented here suggest that for evangelical Christians, one basic outline of the characteristics to be achieved are seen as more relevant for women than for men. Specifically, the Fruit of the Spirit outlined in Galatians 5 are consistently rated as more descriptive for women than for men, and are more readily adopted as “ideal” characteristics for women than for men. So, while Scripture instructs that there is no law against displaying these spiritual characteristics, it seems that for this sample of evangelical college students, there is a cultural proscription against males displaying them.

These results support the anecdote related by Van Leeuwen, suggesting some cross-temporal consistency. Current students have not changed much in almost the past twenty years regarding their perceptions of these spiritual characteristics as primarily feminine. This is consistent with a variety of studies that suggest that stereotypes about femininity in America focus on purity and submissiveness (Welter, 1978), whereas stereotypes about masculinity focus on success, status, and self-reliance (see Brannon, 1976). Characteristics like kindness and gentleness seem to fit more naturally with culturally accepted feminine stereotypes than with masculine stereotypes, whether they are aspirations for all Christians or not.

These data do not support the notion that the method of asking students about these characteristics matters. There is no evidence that allowing participants to be more nuanced in their descriptions by requiring them to think about both the masculine and feminine aspects of the characteristics substantially minimized their stereotypical perceptions.

The present studies also seem to be consistent with current evidence regarding the gender gap in religious commitment and observance (Pew Research Center, 2016). In a variety of analyses, they demonstrate that particularly for Christians, women are seen as more religious than men and are more likely to identify as religious themselves. It seems reasonable, then, that characteristics of the Christian faith might become associated with women. Indeed, some conservative Christians provocatively describe this as the “feminization” of the church (e.g., Podles, 1999) and focus on aspects of Christ’s character that would move away from such an image of Christ as gentle and kind (e.g., O’Brien, 2008).

The present effort does not support the notion that attachment to God, as a proxy for biblical literalism, is related to a gendered view of Christian spiritual characteristics. Secure and insecure attachment patterns did not alter the ways in which participants evaluated the Fruit of the Spirit, despite the assertions that secure attachment would be linked to biblical literalism, and thus to more traditional views of gender.

Limitations

The present research has several limitations worth noting. First, the sample of students came from one Christian college that, although broadly evangelical in composition, is denominationally affiliated with a conservative branch of the church. It may be that the underlying values of the college attracted a student body that is in general, more conservative and more aligned with a biblical literalist perspective. These stereotypical categorizations of the Fruit of the Spirit may better be described as the perspectives of more conservative Christian students.

A second major limitation is the gender disparity in all three samples. In all three studies, the majority of the respondents were female, raising the question of whether these results primarily show female evangelical views rather than general evangelical views. There is some evidence that supports this concern. For example in Study 1, only 8 males participated. When their results are analyzed separately, the only Fruit of the Spirit that still demonstrates a gendered evaluation is “Loving” (χ²(1) = 4.50, p = .036). However, the 9 male participants in Study 2 still support the general findings that the Fruit of the Spirit were judged as feminine more than neutral, except for “Faithful” (t(8) = 1.00, p = .1735) and “Self-controlled” (t(8) = -0.69, p = .2560). It is not clear, then, whether male and female evangelical students have relatively consistent or relatively disparate views on the gendered nature of the Fruit of the Spirit. This is one direction to explore in further research.

Future directions for research

One area for subsequent research should focus on whether gender-based expectations for behavior or spirituality-based expectations for behavior are perceived as more determinative. That is, will violations of gender-based expectations lead to negative evaluations of an individual’s behavior, even when the characteristics being displayed are considered to be positive within the realm of Christian character and spiritual life. Specifically, if men are seen to display characteristics of the Fruit of the Spirit, will they be evaluated negatively for violating gender-based expectations? Based on the present effort, it seems possible that the gender stereotypes and norms will be seen as more relevant to categorizing behavior than the spiritual aspects. Thus, it seems that a male seen as displaying the characteristic of joy (the trait rated least masculine in the sample) might be seen as violating a gender norm despite the fact that it is a characteristic that is described as part of the Christian life.

An additional area of future research should more explicitly test the connections between biblical literalism, attachment to God, and gendered views of Christian spirituality. Although the initial tests presented here did not demonstrate an effect of attachment to God, it seems possible that a more nuanced focus on attachment styles and biblical literalism could provide a strong foundation for understanding why a gendered evaluation of Christian spirituality has emerged.

One final implication for further exploration focuses on Christian spiritual development more specifically. Specifically, why do evangelical students express such a consistent feminine categorization of the Fruit of the Spirit, especially in light of evidence of a strongly masculinized view of God. Martin (1998), for example, anecdotally reports a consistent view of God-as-Man rather than an orthodox view of God-as-Spirit amongst many of her academic and church colleagues. Further, Bryant (2006) describes evangelical college students as having a primarily masculine conception of God, with an inability to describe God as spiritual and without gender. These typical views do not seem consistent with Christian orthodoxy, despite evidence of their commonality. It may be important, then, to understand if the data presented here reflect a broader unorthodox understanding of Scripture, or are held by people generally within the realm of traditional Christian faith. Within those beliefs, an additional disconnect seems to exist between common evangelical assumptions that God is masculine and beliefs that the spiritual characteristics Christians should embody in order to be more godly are feminine. Although this may relate to discussions of the church as “feminized,” initial efforts at addressing the Fruit of the Spirit as an appropriate arena for spiritual development for men suggest that men appreciate and benefit from the discussion (Welch, 2013), though it is unclear how broadly applicable such an approach would be.

The present study advances the literature by clearly documenting the gendered way in which evangelical college students perceive spiritual characteristics, even when they are provided opportunities to acknowledge the neutral aspect of Fruit of the Spirit. Because the spiritual terms seem to have both descriptive and prescriptive elements that are perceived as feminine, it is important to consider how the characteristics underlying spiritual, rather than gendered, nature might be recovered.

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges Amanda Viviano’s contribution to an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Author’s note

A previous version of this manuscript was presented at the Christian Association for Psychological Science International Conference in March 2017.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Diana R. Rice

Author biography

Diana R. Rice (Ph.D. in Social Psychology, Syracuse University) is Professor of Psychology at Geneva College. Dr. Rice’s interests include stereotyping and the use of ethnic slurs. She also maintains teaching and research interests in the integration of psychology and Christian faith.

References

Banks

E. K.

(2015). When men reflect “feminine” roles and women reflect “masculine” roles [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/when-men-reflect-feminine-roles-and-women-reflect-masculine-roles.

Bartkowski

J. P.

Wilcox

W. B.

(2000). Conservative Protestant child discipline: The case of parental yelling. Social Forces, 29, 265–296.

Beck

McDonald

(2004). Attachment to God: The attachment to God inventory, tests of working model correspondence, and an exploration of faith group differences. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32, 92–103.

Bem

S. L.

(1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

Brannon

(1976). The male sex role: Our culture’s blueprint of manhood and what it’s done for us lately. In David

D. S.

Brannon

(eds.), The Forty-Nine Percent Majority (pp. 1–45). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bryant

A. N.

(2006). Assessing the gender climate of an evangelical student subculture in the United States. Gender and Education, 18, 613–634. DOI: 10.1080/09540250600980170.

Burn

S. M.

Busso

(2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism, and religiosity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 412–418.

Cameron

J. A.

Alvarez

J. M.

Ruble

D. N.

Fuligni

A. J.

(2001). Children’s lay theories about ingroups ant outgroups: Reconceptualizing research on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 118–128.

Cassese

E. C.

Holman

M. R.

(2016). Religious beliefs, gender consciousness, and women’s political participation. Sex Roles, 75, 514–527.

10.

Christians for Biblical Equality (1989). Men, women, and biblical equality. Retrieved from https://www.cbeinternational.org/sites/default/files/english_3.pdf.

11.

Colaner

C. W.

Giles

S. M.

(2008). The baby blanket or the briefcase: The impact of evangelical gender role ideologies on career and mothering aspirations of female evangelical college students. Sex Roles, 58, 526–534.

12.

Colaner

C. W.

Warner

S. C.

(2005). The effect of egalitarian and complementarian gender role attitudes on career aspirations in evangelical female undergraduate college students. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 33, 224–229.

13.

Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (1988). The Danvers statement. Retrieved from https://cbmw.org/about/danvers-statement.

14.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.

15.

Graham

(2011). The fruit of the Spirit [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/november-2011/the-fruit-of-the-spirit/.

16.

Grudem

(1995) But what should women do in the church? News from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 1(2), 1–7.

17.

Haines

E. L.

Deaux

Lofaro

(2016). The times they are a-changing . . . or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 353–363.

18.

Heilman

M. E.

Wallen

A. S.

Fuchs

Tamkins

M. M.

(2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 416–427.

19.

Hoffmann

J. P.

Bartkowski

J. P.

(2008). Gender, religious tradition, and biblical literalism. Social Forces, 86, 1246–1272.

20.

Kent

B. V.

Pieper

C. M.

(2019). To know and be known: An intimacy-based explanation for the gender gap in biblical literalism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 58, 231–250.

21.

Martin

(1998). Call me blessed: The emerging Christian woman, 2nd ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Spring Valley Press.

22.

O’Brien

(2008). A Jesus for real men [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/27.48.html.

23.

Pew Research Center (2016). The gender gap in religion around the world. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

24.

Podles

L. J.

(1999). The church impotent: The feminization of Christianity. Dallas, TX: Spence Publishing.

25.

Prentice

D. A.

Carranza

(2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281.

26.

Van Leeuwen

M. S

. (2002). My brother’s keeper: What the social sciences do (and don’t) tell us about masculinity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

27.

Welch

(2013). Man-ifestation of the Spirit: An investigation on the impact of a curriculum and small group spiritual direction on the spiritual formation of Protestant men. Pastoral Psychology, 62, 81–99.

28.

Welter

(1978). The cult of true womanhood, 1820–1860. In Gordon

(ed.), The American Family in Social-Historical Perspective, 2nd ed. (pp. 313–333). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

29.

Williams

J. E.

Bennett

S. M.

(1975). The definition of sex stereotypes via the adjective checklist. Sex Roles, 1, 327–337.

30.

Williams

J. E.

Best

D. L.

(1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multination study. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.