Jen Hatmaker doesn’t go to church anymore (and, it turns out, hasn’t since 2021).
“I’m out of the church right now. I don’t know that I will ever go back, and I don’t know that I will never go back,” the onetime superstar women’s ministry speaker and Evangelical mom blogger explained in a Time magazine writeup this week. Now dubbed a “Christian Influencer,” Hatmaker chats in the interview about menopause, being “terrified” at ‘80s purity culture, and her gig hawking THC gummies.
Speaking of hawking, yes, she has a new book.
Hatmaker and her then-husband Brandon were a big deal in the 2010s, and she retains a sizable social media following.
The couple undertook a discussion on the affirmation of same-sex behavior that was brought into public view in 2016. Later in 2020, the popular author and speaker endorsed her own daughter’s lesbianism in a Pride Month podcast. The congregation that the Hatmakers helped found, Austin New Church, ultimately transferred from the Free Methodist Church, an evangelical denomination, to the United Methodist Church. That congregation describes itself as “a progressive, affirming, gospel-centered community driven by inclusion and social justice” and “based on belonging, not beliefs.”
After liberalizing her views on same-sex marriage, Hatmaker spoke at the annual Wild Goose Festival, the North Carolina Religious Left jamboree alongside self-described “Christian-Atheist” Frank Schaeffer and other “spiritually non-traditional” speakers.
I haven’t thought of Hatmaker in years, but her cohort of “exvanglicals” are worth following up on to see where their paths have led. All of the preceding was part of an identifiable trajectory.
In 2017, Religion News Service columnist Jonathan Merritt complained about the evangelical “aristocracy” disapproving Hatmaker for liberalizing her views on same-sex marriage (her books were dropped by LifeWay). Merritt argued that Hatmaker’s support for same-sex marriage doesn’t undermine her orthodoxy as defined by the Apostles’ Creed, an increasingly common argument at the time. IRD’s Mark Tooley wrote about that here:
“Postmodern Christian liberalism comfortably affirms the creed while often disputing that apostolic theology is accompanied by binding apostolic morals and behavior, centered on a particular view of the human person and human body. Ironically, the old Protestant liberalism retained much of Christian morality even while emasculating the supportive theological architecture. God and the heavenly host must laugh at this ongoing game of rotating chairs among reputedly earthly saints.”
Hopefully we only now see the middle panel of a comic strip, and God sees the full view ahead of redemptive threads leading Hatmaker back to him. Unlike me, he hasn’t forgotten about her, and she’s the figurative lost sheep who wandered off in Luke chapter 15, whom “when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home.”
We’re told by Jesus that “there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.”
Thank goodness he hasn’t forgotten sinners like us. That’s something to rejoice in.
More from IRD:
Why It Matters Jen Hatmaker Endorses Her Daughter’s Homosexuality
Jen Hatmaker, LGBTQ & Apostolicity
The Politics of Jen Hatmaker: Influenced More by Leftism than Christianity
Comment by Qohelet on September 3, 2025 at 10:43 pm
Before she left she made it pretty clear that her views in support of LGBTQ folks were based on Matthew 7:15-20- where Jesus tells us we’ll know what tree is good by the fruit it bears. Looking at the fruit the evangelical movement has bourne with MAGA in power I have sympathy for her and anyone who has given up on the church in these times. Maybe if Christians start speaking up against abuses that are starting to look like they’re out of the book of Isaiah we get some of these folks back.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on September 3, 2025 at 11:01 pm
Very sad.
Lord, have mercy.
Comment by Skipper on September 4, 2025 at 10:58 am
Yes, very sad.
Hebrews 6:6 “But what about people who turn away after they have already seen the light and have received the gift from heaven and have shared in the Holy Spirit?”
2 Peter 2:6 “God punished the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and this is a warning to anyone else who wants to sin.”
I Cortinthians 9:27 “I keep my body under control and make it my slave, so I won’t lose out after telling the good news to others.”
Hebrews 3:7 “If you hear God’s voice today, don’t be stubborn!”
Comment by Wilson R. on September 4, 2025 at 12:08 pm
A persistent pattern around here seems to be an exclusive focus on those sheep who left the fold, with no self-reflection on the shepherds who damaged them into becoming ex-vangelicals.
Comment by Carl Palmer on September 4, 2025 at 12:32 pm
While it is not a foregone conclusion (at least to me), I have to ask: will this become the trajectory of progressive Christianity – espousing Christian values without espousing Christian practice? Moral subjectivity, ecclesial optionality (if that’s a word), and sociopolitical dogmatism?
Comment by Wilson R. on September 4, 2025 at 12:53 pm
“Espousing Christian values without espousing Christian practice” seems more like a feature than a bug, and progressives aren’t close to achieving any monopoly on that.
Comment by Td on September 4, 2025 at 5:15 pm
Abuse in the form of sodomy is not a christian value. Either is same-sex “marriage “.
Comment by Thomas on September 4, 2025 at 6:33 pm
Unfortunately in a very secularized, sexualized society, isn`t usual to find people who claim to be Christian and fail to live according to the Christian faith. I don`t think we should drop these people from our lives, but we should pray for their conversion and repentance. I can understand that those who have relatives or friends who came out as non-heterosexual, often can start seeing things differently or even change completely their views on human sexuality, like Jen Hatmaker did, but thats totally wrong. We have no right of changing God`s word on human sexuality and marriage. Theology of the Body, as created by Pope St. John Paul II, can be an helpful instrument for orthodox Christians.
Comment by Qohelet on September 4, 2025 at 8:40 pm
I get that you’re probably not going to see the irony in your post, but saying you want a vision of human sexuality rooted in the orthodox Christianity of the guy who didn’t stop his priests from abusing thousands of children around the world isn’t going to fly for most moral people.
Jesus doesn’t mention homosexuality anywhere in the Gospels. He repeatedly tells us not to judge other people and that his greatest commandment is to love one another. That makes me quite comfortable being kind to my LGBTQ friends and ignoring the writings of those whose view of sexuality failed to protect the most vulnerable.
Comment by Thomas on September 4, 2025 at 9:33 pm
Jesus never wrote any Gospel. lets stop with fallacies. Pretending that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality in his public life is nonsense. The Gospels tell us only a small part of what Jesus ever taught. If Jesus was the son of God, and His words came from God, we can all be sure that if He states that marriage and sexuality have a divine origin and are meant to take place between a man and a woman in the sacred bond of marriage, His words are to be taken seriously. The first Christians never had aby doubt about it, neither Christianity, until some people have recently tried to correct Jesus. About your insultuous and untrue remarks about Pope St. John Paul II, they are sent back to you.
Comment by Qohelet on September 5, 2025 at 5:38 am
His words are indeed to be taken seriously, but those aren’t His words; they’re your words. And you can be dismissive of the Gospels, but seriously, conservative Catholics and Evangelicals are quite convinced that their role in life is to judge other peoples’ sexuality. If that was Jesus’s intent don’t you think it would be at least mentioned in His earthly ministry? The closest we get is quite the opposite: he stops the crowd from stoning the woman accused of adultery.
That would be enough I guess. Jesus warned us to not try and separate the weeds from the wheat, because we might not make the right call. If Christians were humble enough to recognize that we wouldn’t be publicly delighting in the supposed fall from grace of other people.
As for my remarks about Karol Józef Wojtyła, they are indeed insultous but they are not untrue. It has been documented that as an Archbishop he followed the standard practice of moving pedophile priests from parish to parish. He even sent one to Austria without telling his new bishop. As Pope, the only defense that could be made of him is that he didn’t know, but it was his job to know. And given the accusations from Poland: of course he knew. Even the ignorance defense falls apart in the documented case of Cardinal McCarrick.
Comment by Skipper on September 5, 2025 at 7:34 am
Jesus was a moral person. If you want to follow Christ, you must be a moral person too. He forgave the woman caught in adultery but charged her to stop sinning. The ball was in her court. She could change her lifestyle and be forgiven in the future, or not. Christians are kind to all people but cannot approve of immoral lifestyles. If you love someone, you call them to turn back to God rather than continue on in their destructive behavior. I Corinthians 13:6 “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” The judgment of condemnation is to be avoided. But identifying something as sin is not to judge. If we can’t talk about sin, how can we know what sin is? We need to remember that Jesus calls on us to be holy. That includes eliminating sin in our lives to the best of our ability.
Comment by Thomas on September 5, 2025 at 9:44 am
Since I can`t argue about a previous user intelectual dishonesty and blindness, I could point that Jewish morality at the time of Jesus strongly condemned homosexuality and any kind of homosexual behaviour. I didn`t wrote the Gospels, those who wrote it certainly knew that Jesus only approved of the God given design for humankind, that is heterosexuality. Do you honestly think that if Jesus words on homosexuality were so different from the Judaism of his time they wouldn`t have been recorded? And of course nobody knew better Jesus that His Apostles and the first Christians. Jesus certainly would have endorsed, and probably even said even worst than St. Paul, when he strongly condemns homosexuality and homosexual behaviour in his letters. Some people unfortunately interpret the New Testament with a modern days ideologial bias to suit their agenda.
Comment by Thomas on September 5, 2025 at 9:54 am
The Gospels contain only a small part of Jesus ever said or taught. The Gospel writers didn´t felt the need to repeat things that were common to the Jewish morality of His time. “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John, 21: 20)
Comment by Tim Mc on September 5, 2025 at 10:53 am
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
Jesus was a Jew and He was sent to the Jews. Jews knew the Mosiac Laws., he didn’t have to tell them what was right and wrong.
Leviticus 18:22 “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”
Paul was sent to the Gentiles. He was a Jew, but the Gentiles did not know the Mosiac Law, so he had to teach them.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
Men were inspired by God to write the thoughts of God on paper.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Psalm 1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners.
The world is filled with sinners, but we should not stand in their way. God is working in their lives, whether they know it or not. And look at that list of sinners above, thieves, adultry, greedy, drunkards, idolatry, fornicators, liars, cheaters and homosexuals.
Let us not isolate one sin and point fingers at them only. The church is filled with sinners, many of the members know they are sinners and keep returning to church to ask for forgiveness of their sins.
And that is the key to which church to go to, the one that knows what sin is and will tell you what sin is and they truly believe in forgiveness.
Comment by William Beckett on September 5, 2025 at 11:30 am
Actually Austin New Church began life as a UMC church back in the Mainline heyday, and it was where my Boy Scoot troop met. I don’t know when, why or how it left UMC, but it was sometime after 1976.
Comment by Jeffrey Walton on September 5, 2025 at 11:43 am
William, according to the church’s website it was founded in 2008.
Comment by Thomas on September 5, 2025 at 12:48 pm
Thank you, Tim Mc. You said it all. The problem is that “progressive” Christianity follows the lead of 19th century liberal theology, who sought to create a new religion. For some reason Pope St. Pius X condemned it so strongly, as the “sum of all heresies”. We can see now their effects on progressive, post-Christian denominations, who rather unsurprisingly, are dying, because they have rejected Christian faith. The Catholic Church is also facing their own demons, and we should hope and pray that Pope Leo XIV will be able to put order on his church.
Comment by Wilson R. on September 5, 2025 at 2:52 pm
Thomas:
Well, no, Jesus didn’t write the gospels. But you present that as if it’s the end of the discussion, and it’s not. The gospels were based on what Jesus said and did. Perhaps more to the point, they reflect what the gospel writers thought was most important for their audiences to know about Jesus and why he was the messiah.
Absent anything specific in the gospels, any conclusions about what Jesus might have taught about homosexuality are necessarily based on inference. One could not reasonably infer that the lack of specific teachings on homosexuality in the gospels means that Jesus was fine with the practice. You and I would be in agreement on that, I think.
One might also infer–but, again, it’s only inference–that the lack of a specific teaching meant that Jesus agreed with the proscription against homosexuality in Leviticus. But we also cannot assume that he said ANYTHING on the subject simply because the gospel writers picked only a small number of things to include in their books.
It’s also more than reasonable to conclude, based on his teachings on other matters, that Jesus disagreed with the command to put homosexuals to death. Should we think that he was OK with this instance of capital punishment since it was scriptural, and the gospels don’t record Jesus saying that it wasn’t OK to stone men who committed homosexual acts?
What I think we CAN say is that, whatever Jesus’ teachings (if any) on the subject might have been, the gospel writers did not think they were important enough to include their stories of the messiah’s life and ministry.
It’s interesting how this is almost all that some Christians talk about–a defining issue for them–and yet it clearly was not for the gospel writers.
By contrast, Jesus talks over and over about mercy. Matthew even tells us that, on two separate occasions, Jesus quotes Hosea (“I desire mercy and not sacrifices”) and tells his opponents to go back and study that verse. I don’t know of another instance where Jesus cites the same scripture more than once in the same gospel. So Matthew clearly thinks it’s important.
Luke clearly does, too. Notice how he frames the parable of the Good Samaritan. It begins with a discussion about the two most important commandments: love God and love neighbor. And at the end of the story, Jesus returns to that discussion when he asks the lawyer which man had been a neighbor to the one who was robbed. In Luke’s telling, the lawyer doesn’t give the obvious answer: “the Samaritan.” He says: “The one who showed mercy.”
The gospel writers want us to know that mercy was at the core of the Jesus’ teaching; it was at the heart of the Law that Jesus said he came to fulfill.
And yet all over the conservative evangelical sphere in the US, there were howls of outrage when an Episcopal bishop made an appeal to practice mercy to the president and vice-president.
Maybe if some folks would talk about mercy more and homosexuality less, they’d find themselves more in congruence with the Gospel writers.
Comment by William Beckett on September 6, 2025 at 1:04 pm
Hi,
Just for the record, Austin New Church at 2701 S Lamar Blvd, Austin, TX 78704, was in fact Faith UMC in the 1976 and was founded 25 years earlier. As I mentioned, I don’t know how, when or why it become something else. Here’s a Proquest link to the newspaper article about their 25th anniversary in 1976:
https://0-search-proquest-com.librus.hccs.edu/hnpaustinamericanstatesman/newspapers/church-marks-25th-year-this-sunday/docview/1671827853/sem-2?accountid=7036
Comment by Qohelet on September 6, 2025 at 3:49 pm
I think I found the answer
When Austin New Church entered the UMC it was entrusted with the old Faith UMC building
https://www.christiancentury.org/features/three-united-methodist-pastors-and-their-delight-ministry
Comment by Thomas on September 9, 2025 at 8:05 pm
Wilson R, I don`t think Jesus would have supported stoning people to death for sexual sins. He forgave the adulterous woman but told her to “go and sin no more”. However there is no evidence that adulterous women were put to death for that in the time of Jesus. Only the Romans had the prerrogative to sentence people to death, so the case of the adulterous woman, the Jewish authorities only wanted a way to report him to the Romans. When Christianity developed homosexuality was widespread in the Eastern Roman Empire. People didn`t understood the concept of homosexuality like nowadays, because back then it was basically done between heterosexual people. However, even if they did understood it, the Christian stance still would be the same. We can`t use mercy to justify sin. I will quote German Lutheran theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg: “The mere existence of homophile inclinations does not automatically lead to homosexual practice. Rather, these inclinations can be integrated into a life in which they are subordinated to the relationship with the opposite sex where, in fact, the subject of sexual activity should not be the all-determining center of human life and vocation. As the sociologist Helmut Schelsky has rightly pointed out, one of the primary achievements of marriage as an institution is its enrollment of human sexuality in the service of ulterior tasks and goals./ The reality of homophile inclinations, therefore, need not be denied and must not be condemned. The question, however, is how to handle such inclinations within the human task of responsibly directing our behavior. This is the real problem: and it is here that we must deal with the conclusion that homosexual activity is a departure from the norm for sexual behavior that has been given to men and women as creatures of God. For the church this is the case not only for homosexual but for any sexual activity that does not intend the goal of marriage between man and wife—in particular, adultery./ The church has to live with the fact that, in this area of life as in others, departures from the norm are not exceptional but rather common and widespread. The church must encounter all those concerned with tolerance and understanding but also call them to repentance. It cannot surrender the distinction between the norm and behavior that departs from that norm.
Here lies the boundary of a Christian church that knows itself to be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.”
Comment by Wilson R. on September 10, 2025 at 9:49 am
Thomas:
And yet: Stephen was stoned to death despite the fact that only Romans could legally carry out an execution.
Comment by Randy Horick on September 10, 2025 at 1:23 pm
Thomas:
Now that I have a little more time, let me give a fuller response to the point about Jesus and the Law.
We agree that Jesus would not endorse the stoning of sinners. I agree with you that Jesus’ call for mercy and forgiveness does not mean he condones sin.
And yet the letter of the Law says that adulterers, like anyone engaged in homosexual acts, should be put to death by stoning. Jesus here is going behind the Law to reinterpret it by focusing on its larger purpose. He acknowledges what the Law says but then puts conditions on it–only those without sin can be executioners–that take his audience back to the heart of the Law rather than the letter of it.
Comment by Thomas on September 10, 2025 at 7:24 pm
Randy, we can`t forget that the real target of these men wasn`t the women, but Jesus. Its uncertain if she would have really have been put to death or shunned. They wanted Him to take a stance on support of Mosaic Law, to denounce Him to the Romans, or against it. Since they were full of sinful intentions against Jesus they were probably even more sinful than the adulterous woman!
Stephen execution was indeed against the Roman law. It seems to have been like a spontaneous decision and it most likely gave for those who did it problems with the Romans.