Status
Available
Call number
Publication
Liveright (2021), 384 pages
Original publication date
2020-05-19
Description
"A scholar of American Christianity answers perhaps the most bewildering question of our time: Why are evangelicals "the Donald's" most fervent supporters? Donald Trump is a libertine who lacks even basic knowledge of the Christian faith. Yet in 2016 he won 81 percent of the white evangelical vote, and continues to rely on white evangelicals as his base of support. While we assume the religious right has pragmatic reasons for backing Trump, in truth he represents the fulfillment of evangelicals' most deeply held values. As historian Kristin Kobes Du Mez demonstrates, American evangelicals have worked for decades to replace the Jesus of the Gospels with an idol of rugged masculinity and Christian nationalism-or, in the words of one modern chaplain, with "a spiritual badass." Trump is hardly the first flashy celebrity to capture evangelicals' hearts and minds, having followed the path blazed by, among others, John Wayne, Oliver North, and Mel Gibson. A revelatory account of a uniquely influential subculture, Jesus and John Wayne incisively reveals why evangelicals have rallied behind patriarchal power and the least- Christian president in American history"--… (more)
Language
Original language
English
Physical description
384 p.; 8.3 inches
ISBN
163149905X / 9781631499050
User reviews
LibraryThing member DavidWineberg
Usually I will stay away from books on religion. Everyone’s passions overtake their judgment, facts are few, fleeting and ignored, and no minds are changed in the reading. But the pop culture intersection of American politics and American evangelicalism proved tempting, and thankfully, most
“To be an evangelical, according to the National Association of Evangelicals, is to uphold the Bible as one’s ultimate authority, to confess the centrality of Christ’s atonement, to believe in a born-again conversion experience, and to actively work to spread this good news and reform society accordingly.” There is no mention of watching Fox News or voting Republican straight ticket, carrying guns, supporting the patriarchy or proselytizing the military. But those facets have taken over evangelicalism. The rest of the requirements have pretty much dropped away.
Kristin Kobes Du Mez hails from this environment, so she is intimately familiar with it and how it operates. She has written an exhaustive study of the evolution of American evangelicalism, with emphasis on its political effects. She has assembled all the top personalities and all the turning points in a fast-moving, if stomach-churning history that ultimately explains how America adopted Donald Trump. It is less than pretty.
Putting John Wayne and Jesus Christ in the same box takes a little work (for the uninitiated, like me). Wayne was a philanderer, married three times in an era when divorce was shameful. He was hard-smoking and swearing. He was a racist who claimed the Indians got what they deserved because whites needed more land and Indians were selfishly occupying it. For all his patriotic ballyhoo, he avoided the draft and never served. You might not see how this would be the ideal role model for evangelical Christians. But then, millions would say the same of Donald Trump. And that is the point.
Wayne was a swashbuckler onscreen. He took no guff from anyone. He was his own man; everyone else be damned. That is what evangelicals aspire to. They demand it of their president. And they also attribute all these qualities to Jesus Christ.
Throughout the last hundred years, evangelicals have glommed on to very flawed, most un-Christian characters as their heroes. Du Mez examines the histories of numerous televangelists who bilked millions from their viewers, only to be humiliated out of business by sex scandals. Two-faced politician-hypocrites are nothing new, and whoring Hollywood stars are the kinds of people evangelicals want everyone to look up to. Trump is not a difficult case to rationalize; he fits the cast perfectly.
Evangelicals believe in the patriarchy. Men rule, women are submissive. Men need to be serviced, women are only there to serve and support. Men are wild conquerors, saving and protecting the family. Women prefer it this way, needing to be swept off their feet by a bold knight in shining armor, rather than a pretty Prince Charming. There is stability and order in the patriarchy; equality means chaos.
Evangelicals are against anything that dilutes the power of men. They are against abortion (women having control over anything), women dressing like men, working outside the home or in politics. They are against (most) immigration and any form of foreign government they object to. This means constant war, the main thing they seem devoted to.
Two things can be drawn from this: 1) America can never be seen as wimpy. It must strike fear in the hearts of all other nations, and go to war to prove it, repeatedly. And stay until it wins completely. 2) America’s leader must be a warrior-king: loud, bold, unafraid, hard-nosed and direct. Evangelicals will vote against anyone who doesn’t fit that description. So Jimmy Carter, despite being an evangelical himself, had to go. So did George H.W. Bush. Trump over Clinton was an easy choice. And when they vote, it is en bloc, like north of 80% of them voting for this caricature of a president.
The other thing all their requirements spell out is White Supremacy. Guns are for all whites (44% of evangelicals have one), but not for blacks. Immigration is for white Europeans, not Central Americans. John Wayne cleared those people out of his path, and so must evangelicals – and their presidents. And they insist Jesus was like that too.
Evangelicals have twisted Christianity to fit their needs. For them, Jesus was a warrior, more Rambo than Mister Rogers. Fearsome, not loving. As Jerry Falwell said in 2004 – “God is Pro-War.” And millions took that to heart. At several points in the book, evangelicals refer to Jesus as a “badass”. This aggressive interpretation has led evangelicals to the US military. Not to serve, but to convert. They get onto military bases, give lectures, show Christian films (Mel Gibson is the new John Wayne), and actively work on individual soldiers. Today, 40% of active duty servicemen consider themselves evangelicals, fighting for Jesus, the patriarchy and White Supremacy.
This is also closely tied to the rape culture so prominent in the military. Women are there for the taking, and not for active duty service. Victims are hounded out of the service. A favorite strategy is to blame the victim for being there at all. With evangelists, there is always a woman to blame. In one of the numerous sex scandals among celebrity evangelists, blame was assigned to the preacher’s wife, who clearly hadn’t satisfied her husband sufficiently to keep his eye from wandering. He was clearly innocent.
Which brings out another of the many distasteful aspects of evangelicals: sexual hypocrisy. While busy telling the faithful how to have sex, they themselves are total pigs. Du Mez examines numerous scandals around numerous evangelists. They blame the victim, they deny, they ignore, they get away with it (though they often have to resign – for a while). It is astonishing how low quality so many evangelists are. As inspirations and moral models, they are total failures.
What they are good at is profit. The God business is booming. All the celebrity evangelists have built massive multimedia empires that funnel cash back to the center. They write Christian books by the thousands. (They love to write highly instructive sex manuals for men and women, the juicier and more explicit the better). They have theme parks, museums and tours like rockstars. As a friend of mine told me just yesterday – any shepherd will tell you, the flock must be fleeced as often as possible.
Evangelicals maintain they are conservatives. They abhor government participation in anything they do. Unless it involves free money, like federal funds for the sexual abstinence for teens effort. They lobby government, cozy up to politicians, and press a religious agenda. In this, they are obviously and blatantly hypocritical and totally un-Christian. The rights of no one else count worth a damn.
They venerate the Bible, but are most selective in what they follow. Turning the other cheek is out, as is never coveting another man’s wife. The Golden Rule is ignored in favor of violent deaths. Bearing false witness? Please. Love thy neighbor? Only if they’re white evangelical Republican Americans.
There is a ton of irony throughout the book. My own favorite is from Phyllis Schlafly (one of the very few women evangelicals respected). She said of Bill Clinton’s impeachment that if he got away with lying, “Americans can look forward to a succession of TV charlatans and professional liars occupying the White House.” She was correct. In another bout of irony, 77% of evangelical leaders believe Islam is “dedicated to world domination.” Takes one to know one, I’ve heard say.
The “family values” evangelicals propound are just a cover for patriarchy, submissive women and masculine power, Du Mez says. In the “always a woman to blame” mode, not satisfying husband’s sexual needs led him to abuse children. He is innocent. She is the guilty party. Evangelicals pressure women to restore violent and abusive husbands and fathers to the family. They knowingly allow child abusers and rapists to marry in the church and are surprised when there is trouble later. Counseling will be needed – from the church. They have created a mountain of abuse cases by themselves. In this Me Too era, 700 victims came forward in the Southern Baptist Conference alone.
All in all, Jesus and John Wayne makes Christian evangelicals look like a very ugly cult. Unlike so many others that bloom, fester and disappear, this one has staying power. It is successful, and it is a shame.
David Wineberg
Show More
worthwhile. For a title like Jesus and John Wayne, I broke my rule.“To be an evangelical, according to the National Association of Evangelicals, is to uphold the Bible as one’s ultimate authority, to confess the centrality of Christ’s atonement, to believe in a born-again conversion experience, and to actively work to spread this good news and reform society accordingly.” There is no mention of watching Fox News or voting Republican straight ticket, carrying guns, supporting the patriarchy or proselytizing the military. But those facets have taken over evangelicalism. The rest of the requirements have pretty much dropped away.
Kristin Kobes Du Mez hails from this environment, so she is intimately familiar with it and how it operates. She has written an exhaustive study of the evolution of American evangelicalism, with emphasis on its political effects. She has assembled all the top personalities and all the turning points in a fast-moving, if stomach-churning history that ultimately explains how America adopted Donald Trump. It is less than pretty.
Putting John Wayne and Jesus Christ in the same box takes a little work (for the uninitiated, like me). Wayne was a philanderer, married three times in an era when divorce was shameful. He was hard-smoking and swearing. He was a racist who claimed the Indians got what they deserved because whites needed more land and Indians were selfishly occupying it. For all his patriotic ballyhoo, he avoided the draft and never served. You might not see how this would be the ideal role model for evangelical Christians. But then, millions would say the same of Donald Trump. And that is the point.
Wayne was a swashbuckler onscreen. He took no guff from anyone. He was his own man; everyone else be damned. That is what evangelicals aspire to. They demand it of their president. And they also attribute all these qualities to Jesus Christ.
Throughout the last hundred years, evangelicals have glommed on to very flawed, most un-Christian characters as their heroes. Du Mez examines the histories of numerous televangelists who bilked millions from their viewers, only to be humiliated out of business by sex scandals. Two-faced politician-hypocrites are nothing new, and whoring Hollywood stars are the kinds of people evangelicals want everyone to look up to. Trump is not a difficult case to rationalize; he fits the cast perfectly.
Evangelicals believe in the patriarchy. Men rule, women are submissive. Men need to be serviced, women are only there to serve and support. Men are wild conquerors, saving and protecting the family. Women prefer it this way, needing to be swept off their feet by a bold knight in shining armor, rather than a pretty Prince Charming. There is stability and order in the patriarchy; equality means chaos.
Evangelicals are against anything that dilutes the power of men. They are against abortion (women having control over anything), women dressing like men, working outside the home or in politics. They are against (most) immigration and any form of foreign government they object to. This means constant war, the main thing they seem devoted to.
Two things can be drawn from this: 1) America can never be seen as wimpy. It must strike fear in the hearts of all other nations, and go to war to prove it, repeatedly. And stay until it wins completely. 2) America’s leader must be a warrior-king: loud, bold, unafraid, hard-nosed and direct. Evangelicals will vote against anyone who doesn’t fit that description. So Jimmy Carter, despite being an evangelical himself, had to go. So did George H.W. Bush. Trump over Clinton was an easy choice. And when they vote, it is en bloc, like north of 80% of them voting for this caricature of a president.
The other thing all their requirements spell out is White Supremacy. Guns are for all whites (44% of evangelicals have one), but not for blacks. Immigration is for white Europeans, not Central Americans. John Wayne cleared those people out of his path, and so must evangelicals – and their presidents. And they insist Jesus was like that too.
Evangelicals have twisted Christianity to fit their needs. For them, Jesus was a warrior, more Rambo than Mister Rogers. Fearsome, not loving. As Jerry Falwell said in 2004 – “God is Pro-War.” And millions took that to heart. At several points in the book, evangelicals refer to Jesus as a “badass”. This aggressive interpretation has led evangelicals to the US military. Not to serve, but to convert. They get onto military bases, give lectures, show Christian films (Mel Gibson is the new John Wayne), and actively work on individual soldiers. Today, 40% of active duty servicemen consider themselves evangelicals, fighting for Jesus, the patriarchy and White Supremacy.
This is also closely tied to the rape culture so prominent in the military. Women are there for the taking, and not for active duty service. Victims are hounded out of the service. A favorite strategy is to blame the victim for being there at all. With evangelists, there is always a woman to blame. In one of the numerous sex scandals among celebrity evangelists, blame was assigned to the preacher’s wife, who clearly hadn’t satisfied her husband sufficiently to keep his eye from wandering. He was clearly innocent.
Which brings out another of the many distasteful aspects of evangelicals: sexual hypocrisy. While busy telling the faithful how to have sex, they themselves are total pigs. Du Mez examines numerous scandals around numerous evangelists. They blame the victim, they deny, they ignore, they get away with it (though they often have to resign – for a while). It is astonishing how low quality so many evangelists are. As inspirations and moral models, they are total failures.
What they are good at is profit. The God business is booming. All the celebrity evangelists have built massive multimedia empires that funnel cash back to the center. They write Christian books by the thousands. (They love to write highly instructive sex manuals for men and women, the juicier and more explicit the better). They have theme parks, museums and tours like rockstars. As a friend of mine told me just yesterday – any shepherd will tell you, the flock must be fleeced as often as possible.
Evangelicals maintain they are conservatives. They abhor government participation in anything they do. Unless it involves free money, like federal funds for the sexual abstinence for teens effort. They lobby government, cozy up to politicians, and press a religious agenda. In this, they are obviously and blatantly hypocritical and totally un-Christian. The rights of no one else count worth a damn.
They venerate the Bible, but are most selective in what they follow. Turning the other cheek is out, as is never coveting another man’s wife. The Golden Rule is ignored in favor of violent deaths. Bearing false witness? Please. Love thy neighbor? Only if they’re white evangelical Republican Americans.
There is a ton of irony throughout the book. My own favorite is from Phyllis Schlafly (one of the very few women evangelicals respected). She said of Bill Clinton’s impeachment that if he got away with lying, “Americans can look forward to a succession of TV charlatans and professional liars occupying the White House.” She was correct. In another bout of irony, 77% of evangelical leaders believe Islam is “dedicated to world domination.” Takes one to know one, I’ve heard say.
The “family values” evangelicals propound are just a cover for patriarchy, submissive women and masculine power, Du Mez says. In the “always a woman to blame” mode, not satisfying husband’s sexual needs led him to abuse children. He is innocent. She is the guilty party. Evangelicals pressure women to restore violent and abusive husbands and fathers to the family. They knowingly allow child abusers and rapists to marry in the church and are surprised when there is trouble later. Counseling will be needed – from the church. They have created a mountain of abuse cases by themselves. In this Me Too era, 700 victims came forward in the Southern Baptist Conference alone.
All in all, Jesus and John Wayne makes Christian evangelicals look like a very ugly cult. Unlike so many others that bloom, fester and disappear, this one has staying power. It is successful, and it is a shame.
David Wineberg
Show Less
LibraryThing member mjperry
When it comes to explaining the ability of a significant majority of Evangelicals to support President Trump despite his having behaviours that are contrary to their "family values", this is the best book I have read.
It is an unsettling account of the transformation of the public Evangelical stream
It is an unsettling account of the transformation of the public Evangelical stream
Show More
of Christianity that has occured over the past five and a half decades. The transformation to a white, patriarchal organization that wishes to impose its values on the wider culture. The book is not one that is uplifting but it is informative and balanced. I would recommend it highly. Show Less
LibraryThing member threadnsong
What a timely, well-researched, fascinating, gripping book Du Mez has written. It traces the rise of white Christian evangelicalism from a small and fringe group to the powerhouse that dominates huge swaths of commerce, politics, and education. And how this group's view of Jesus is not that of the
The myth of the heroic warrior male in American history starts with Teddy Roosevelt, a short, high-voiced man who chose the cowboy persona and became President and patron of the West. But it didn't stop there, and morphed from Teddy Roosevelt to John Wayne to Ronald Reagan to Trump. None of these men were evangelical, but that does not seem to matter to this movement: they are brash, swaggering, and insistent that women stay in their appointed places. Boys are bullied into being men, girls are brainwashed into total submission, and any difference from these norms, including sexual assault, are the victims' fault. And her father's, because he did not protect "his" daughter/property well enough.
It is a quick read by a professor who has done an extraordinary amount of what must have been difficult research, and documents how we came to be where we are now.
Show More
gentle, robed man who advocated "love thy neighbor," but instead a warrior whose mighty sword will swiftly kill millions of enemies.The myth of the heroic warrior male in American history starts with Teddy Roosevelt, a short, high-voiced man who chose the cowboy persona and became President and patron of the West. But it didn't stop there, and morphed from Teddy Roosevelt to John Wayne to Ronald Reagan to Trump. None of these men were evangelical, but that does not seem to matter to this movement: they are brash, swaggering, and insistent that women stay in their appointed places. Boys are bullied into being men, girls are brainwashed into total submission, and any difference from these norms, including sexual assault, are the victims' fault. And her father's, because he did not protect "his" daughter/property well enough.
It is a quick read by a professor who has done an extraordinary amount of what must have been difficult research, and documents how we came to be where we are now.
Show Less
LibraryThing member deusvitae
A thoroughly researched investigation into a particularly white Evangelical cult of "masculinity" over the past 75 years.
The author's primary title is chosen advisedly: the entire work analyzes the history of white Evangelicalism with a focus on the encouraged expression of militant masculinity
In a very real sense the work is an attempt to understand Evangelical support for Trump: the work is introduced by one of Trump's speeches, and concludes in the wake of his election. By the time you get to the end you much more fully understand how Trump was not aberrant, but in fact the embodiment of a type of militarist fighting style which has been championed in white Evangelicalism for years.
The author begins with the antecedents from the second great awakening and the early 20th century but really focuses on the era of Billy Graham and following. The veneer on Graham is highly chipped in this telling, with a focus on his rabid anti-Communism, foreign aggression, intense politicking, fondness for Nixon, and his awful quote in the NYT about everyone having their own type of "My Lai." After this it becomes much easier to understand Graham fils' affection for Trump.
The narrative continues with all the events of the late 20th century with a focus on the development of this particular brash masculinity in white Evangelicalism: highly patriotic and militaristic, aggressive, rarely rationalized in terms of Scripture, but certainly willing to shape views of Biblical characters in light of the John Wayne/Braveheart/etc. model. The author addresses the changes of the Sixties, the war in Vietnam, political agitation as segregation was condemned by society, the anti-ERA crusade of Schlafly (who becomes a major character throughout the work), the establishment of the "Moral Majority," the apotheosis and disappointment of the Reagan presidency, a nadir under Bush I, and resurgence under Clinton. We read of the development of the homeschool emphasis, the Gothard collective, Phillips and Wilson, Dobson of course, and what they were all about. The Nineties are filled with the Promise Keepers and a momentary hope for racial reconciliation: it is perhaps at this moment when the author's tendency toward Midwestern snark and cynicism is perhaps a bit misplaced, for whereas yes, these emphases would be lost as the 21st century came about, it would not be hard to imagine a possible 21st century in white Evangelicalism that maintained this kind of emphasis. It might have been better to underscore how the Promise Keepers movement was damaged by its emphasis on racial reconciliation as a harbinger of what was to come.
With the 21st century we get Eldredge and his crowd, the acceleration of this particular view of "masculinity" over the "softness" of the Nineties, and of course the post-9/11 demonization of Islam and Muslims which became quite prevalent within white Evangelicalism. Again white Evangelicalism was at a nadir with the unpopularity of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the economic crisis; yet again it would draw strength by finding an enemy, this time Obama, and in their demonization of him. All of this leads directly to Trump: the author spoke of the 2016 primary and election in great detail, particularly in terms of the Evangelical response to Trump. How they took to him as their champion and defender is the appropriate conclusion to the whole.
Perhaps the biggest challenge of the book is in its marketing: this is a work of historical analysis taking a critical look at the history of white Evangelical characterizations of masculinity (and, by necessity, its view of femininity as contrast) from 1950 to the present, and how those characterizations help to inform Evangelical culture and political engagement. It does not pretend to be a wide-ranging history; it was not designed to be sympathetic. The secondary title is highly inflammatory, although the author has made strong arguments to both ends: the masculinity which white Evangelicals have promoted is not the masculinity of Jesus, but a particularly romanticized American aggressive masculinity without anchor in Scripture, and which has distorted white Evangelical perspectives on what "Biblical masculinity" might involve; the promotion of these various causes and views are at least partially responsible for the divisions present in America, although it would be inaccurate to suggest they are the only catalysts for such fracturing.
That the "tone" of the book is being criticized speaks to the unassailable nature of the historical evidence marshaled and the discomfort the work causes to those regarding whom it is written. There is good reason why this book is so lauded: the quality of the scholarship, and the abundant evidence for its propositions, demand a reckoning. There are certainly plenty of more "hagiographical" histories of white Evangelicalism, but gone are the days when they set the tone for how white Evangelicals are understood in history. White Evangelicalism is going to undergo a lot more critical review of its history as here and in Posner and Butler, among others, and such a reckoning is long due.
If you have lived as a Christian and have been influenced by "popular Christianity" at all over the past 75 years, read this book. See if and how you have been unduly influenced by these portrayals of masculinity. Allow the context to help explain it, and prove willing to repent by no longer using American popular conceptions of masculinity to inform how one views the Biblical witness, and prove willing to reconsider what the Biblical witness is saying about what it means to be male and female in Christ.
The author's primary title is chosen advisedly: the entire work analyzes the history of white Evangelicalism with a focus on the encouraged expression of militant masculinity
Show More
embodied in the characters portrayed by John Wayne. The author does well to note how the characters of John Wayne, and the actual John Wayne, were different in many respects; the irony is not lost throughout.In a very real sense the work is an attempt to understand Evangelical support for Trump: the work is introduced by one of Trump's speeches, and concludes in the wake of his election. By the time you get to the end you much more fully understand how Trump was not aberrant, but in fact the embodiment of a type of militarist fighting style which has been championed in white Evangelicalism for years.
The author begins with the antecedents from the second great awakening and the early 20th century but really focuses on the era of Billy Graham and following. The veneer on Graham is highly chipped in this telling, with a focus on his rabid anti-Communism, foreign aggression, intense politicking, fondness for Nixon, and his awful quote in the NYT about everyone having their own type of "My Lai." After this it becomes much easier to understand Graham fils' affection for Trump.
The narrative continues with all the events of the late 20th century with a focus on the development of this particular brash masculinity in white Evangelicalism: highly patriotic and militaristic, aggressive, rarely rationalized in terms of Scripture, but certainly willing to shape views of Biblical characters in light of the John Wayne/Braveheart/etc. model. The author addresses the changes of the Sixties, the war in Vietnam, political agitation as segregation was condemned by society, the anti-ERA crusade of Schlafly (who becomes a major character throughout the work), the establishment of the "Moral Majority," the apotheosis and disappointment of the Reagan presidency, a nadir under Bush I, and resurgence under Clinton. We read of the development of the homeschool emphasis, the Gothard collective, Phillips and Wilson, Dobson of course, and what they were all about. The Nineties are filled with the Promise Keepers and a momentary hope for racial reconciliation: it is perhaps at this moment when the author's tendency toward Midwestern snark and cynicism is perhaps a bit misplaced, for whereas yes, these emphases would be lost as the 21st century came about, it would not be hard to imagine a possible 21st century in white Evangelicalism that maintained this kind of emphasis. It might have been better to underscore how the Promise Keepers movement was damaged by its emphasis on racial reconciliation as a harbinger of what was to come.
With the 21st century we get Eldredge and his crowd, the acceleration of this particular view of "masculinity" over the "softness" of the Nineties, and of course the post-9/11 demonization of Islam and Muslims which became quite prevalent within white Evangelicalism. Again white Evangelicalism was at a nadir with the unpopularity of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the economic crisis; yet again it would draw strength by finding an enemy, this time Obama, and in their demonization of him. All of this leads directly to Trump: the author spoke of the 2016 primary and election in great detail, particularly in terms of the Evangelical response to Trump. How they took to him as their champion and defender is the appropriate conclusion to the whole.
Perhaps the biggest challenge of the book is in its marketing: this is a work of historical analysis taking a critical look at the history of white Evangelical characterizations of masculinity (and, by necessity, its view of femininity as contrast) from 1950 to the present, and how those characterizations help to inform Evangelical culture and political engagement. It does not pretend to be a wide-ranging history; it was not designed to be sympathetic. The secondary title is highly inflammatory, although the author has made strong arguments to both ends: the masculinity which white Evangelicals have promoted is not the masculinity of Jesus, but a particularly romanticized American aggressive masculinity without anchor in Scripture, and which has distorted white Evangelical perspectives on what "Biblical masculinity" might involve; the promotion of these various causes and views are at least partially responsible for the divisions present in America, although it would be inaccurate to suggest they are the only catalysts for such fracturing.
That the "tone" of the book is being criticized speaks to the unassailable nature of the historical evidence marshaled and the discomfort the work causes to those regarding whom it is written. There is good reason why this book is so lauded: the quality of the scholarship, and the abundant evidence for its propositions, demand a reckoning. There are certainly plenty of more "hagiographical" histories of white Evangelicalism, but gone are the days when they set the tone for how white Evangelicals are understood in history. White Evangelicalism is going to undergo a lot more critical review of its history as here and in Posner and Butler, among others, and such a reckoning is long due.
If you have lived as a Christian and have been influenced by "popular Christianity" at all over the past 75 years, read this book. See if and how you have been unduly influenced by these portrayals of masculinity. Allow the context to help explain it, and prove willing to repent by no longer using American popular conceptions of masculinity to inform how one views the Biblical witness, and prove willing to reconsider what the Biblical witness is saying about what it means to be male and female in Christ.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mst3k4L
A good read, but I really wish there would good examples of Godly men to follow. William Wilberforce is a great example of a Godly man who has conviction and wants to protect people, but does so in a non-violent way. As a general rule, I don't like it when books point out all the problems without
Still very informative though, which is why it gets 4 stars.
Show More
pointing out the good or at least spending time to suggest ways that good could be produced.Still very informative though, which is why it gets 4 stars.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Bill.Bradford
A lot of attention has been paid over the past few years to the rise of the “nones”, those who have no religious affiliation. The numbers of those identifying as white evangelical have been dropping, and, as the title indicates, divides have opened within white evangelicalism that have become
General note: Du Mez’s original intended audience was not Christians. It was written o explain the current state of Christianity to non-Christians. It has, however, found a huge audience within Christianity. We similarly hope that this review will be of use regardless of your personal beliefs.
Many theologians, historians, etc., believe that when we say “evangelical” in the United States it has lost most of its theological meaning, and is instead now more cultural. Du Mez would agree with this. She identifies evangelical as a term that refers to associations and to a specific consumer culture. There are thoughtful churches that do not fit the pattern. Unfortunately, the evangelical subculture affects the majority of white evangelical churches to some extent and thus the issues in the pages of this book can be found in many churches that identify as evangelical. Speaking as someone who grew up and has lived most of my life in the evangelical subculture, I found the book to be eye-opening in places, and it helped me make sense of things that I have seen happening over the past 40 or so years.
Show More
impossible to ignore. Regardless of where you fall on the issues discussed, if we are going to understand what has happened and is happening in the white evangelical church one of the major factors we need to understand is why a pattern of aggressive, militant male leadership arose, and what has sustained it. Jesus and John Wayne is an important book to aid in this effort. General note: Du Mez’s original intended audience was not Christians. It was written o explain the current state of Christianity to non-Christians. It has, however, found a huge audience within Christianity. We similarly hope that this review will be of use regardless of your personal beliefs.
Many theologians, historians, etc., believe that when we say “evangelical” in the United States it has lost most of its theological meaning, and is instead now more cultural. Du Mez would agree with this. She identifies evangelical as a term that refers to associations and to a specific consumer culture. There are thoughtful churches that do not fit the pattern. Unfortunately, the evangelical subculture affects the majority of white evangelical churches to some extent and thus the issues in the pages of this book can be found in many churches that identify as evangelical. Speaking as someone who grew up and has lived most of my life in the evangelical subculture, I found the book to be eye-opening in places, and it helped me make sense of things that I have seen happening over the past 40 or so years.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Eavans
Having been raised by the classic Evangelical, VBS-attending, George Bush-loving, pink girl’s bible-toting lifestyle, and having long left, I am always ready to talk about it. It’s like another mother I’m stuck with, and I struggle to this day to understand how something I loved so much as a
That being said, I knew a lot going in. I learned a lot, but I also knew a lot more than Du Mez wrote down. On a personal level, I tend to shy away from books on current events with an overt political bias. It doesn’t help anyone. Thankfully, this book did not read as such, and it was fairly sober for the content. I understand the marketing behind it though—what will get liberals feeling more self-congratulatory than swinging around a book proudly claiming that white Christians ruined America?
Du Mez’s argument, broadly, is that the vacuum of physical (masculine) jobs lost from capitalism in the late 19th century contributed to some good old fashioned gender-trouble that was remedied by masculinizing Christianity. By utilizing the capitalist avenue of merchandise, and needing the broadest “Christian” audience possible in order to buy it, early game changers were able to de-theologize the religion and instead create a shared cultural identity (and thus voting block). The book continues specifically documenting the masculinization trends in Evangelicalism throughout the past 70 years, ending in how Trump was the perfect iteration of their ideology.
In all, I have nothing bad to say about the text. What made me stop myself from rating this higher was that I wanted more!!! I am deeply craving a definitive history and theory of American Evangelicalism and I wished the book was a few hundred pages longer exploring their fascination (fetishization) with Judaism/Israel, a longer breakdown on capitalism (with CCM especially), and all the other wack-ass sh*t I had to deal with everyday working the religions isles at my local Nebraska used bookstore. Basically, I want a college course in this, injected pure and raw into my forearm.
Anyways, I also wished there was a bit of “rebuttal” looks at Du Mez’ claims. Not that she is wrong, but just because I feel any book on political issues in the present climate is only feeding in polarization without it.
If you know nothing about Evangelicalism this is an okay starting point. It focuses specifically on masculinity and gender, which while a big part of the community, is only scratching the surface.
Show More
child could screw me up so royally as an adult.That being said, I knew a lot going in. I learned a lot, but I also knew a lot more than Du Mez wrote down. On a personal level, I tend to shy away from books on current events with an overt political bias. It doesn’t help anyone. Thankfully, this book did not read as such, and it was fairly sober for the content. I understand the marketing behind it though—what will get liberals feeling more self-congratulatory than swinging around a book proudly claiming that white Christians ruined America?
Du Mez’s argument, broadly, is that the vacuum of physical (masculine) jobs lost from capitalism in the late 19th century contributed to some good old fashioned gender-trouble that was remedied by masculinizing Christianity. By utilizing the capitalist avenue of merchandise, and needing the broadest “Christian” audience possible in order to buy it, early game changers were able to de-theologize the religion and instead create a shared cultural identity (and thus voting block). The book continues specifically documenting the masculinization trends in Evangelicalism throughout the past 70 years, ending in how Trump was the perfect iteration of their ideology.
In all, I have nothing bad to say about the text. What made me stop myself from rating this higher was that I wanted more!!! I am deeply craving a definitive history and theory of American Evangelicalism and I wished the book was a few hundred pages longer exploring their fascination (fetishization) with Judaism/Israel, a longer breakdown on capitalism (with CCM especially), and all the other wack-ass sh*t I had to deal with everyday working the religions isles at my local Nebraska used bookstore. Basically, I want a college course in this, injected pure and raw into my forearm.
Anyways, I also wished there was a bit of “rebuttal” looks at Du Mez’ claims. Not that she is wrong, but just because I feel any book on political issues in the present climate is only feeding in polarization without it.
If you know nothing about Evangelicalism this is an okay starting point. It focuses specifically on masculinity and gender, which while a big part of the community, is only scratching the surface.
Show Less
LibraryThing member True54Blue
An interesting read that offers lots for thought although the author clearly has an agenda and her style allows for no counter claims. There are some factual issues such as her blaming "The Fellowship" for having “In God We Trust” added to US currency in 1955. It was made the US motto that year
Show More
but first appeared on coins in 1864, long before there was such a thing as Evangelicals. There are many instances of "guilt by association" without providing sources so I'm unsure if her claims are accurate. I was also dismayed that she spent little time on white Evangelicals who are not of the type she wants to portray. Her claim is that "white evangelicals corrupted a faith and fractured a nation" so she spends no time on white Evangelicals who don't fit that paradigm and I only counted one BIPOC associated with them as the exception that proves the rule I suppose. All in all she fails to prove her thesis but provides enough material for three stars. Show Less
LibraryThing member rsairs
Sometimes a bit conflating, but nonetheless a painful recounting of a toxic strain stretching across decades and evolving definitions of evangelicalism. I would suggest there's more to the story, and there are expressions of that faith that had and have a different trajectory, but I would recommend
Show More
the book. Read thoroughly, and see if like me you don't agree with the last paragraph once you get there. Show Less
LibraryThing member spinsterrevival
There’s not much to say besides this is an excellently researched book that if nothing else made me feel vindication for my utter contempt of these people. It helped me understand where they came from via history and somewhat how they’re surviving still (basically with a ton of hatred guiding
Show More
their way). There’s no changing them though; minus the few escapees who have deprogrammed themselves, I truly don’t know where we’d go from here, and it’s a wretched situation. The author’s final sentences in the book are “Appreciating how this ideology developed over time is also essential for those who wish to dismantle it. What was once done might also be undone.” I’m not so sure of that, but I guess some speck of hope was needed to combat the bleakness. Show Less
LibraryThing member nmele
I meant to read this book when it first was published but I waited too long, some of its impact on me has been lost through reading reviews, responses and the events of the intervening years. Nonetheless, Kobes Du Metz perceptively and pointedly recounts the gradual infusion of nationalism and
Show More
militaristic violence into some evangelical communities. Definitely worth reading. Show Less
LibraryThing member JRobinW
This is a well written history .
LibraryThing member khoyt
I will be pondering the content and substance of this book for a long time to come. A favorite author of mine, Heidi Chiavaroli, recommended this book, or I would not have known about it. She said it would be a difficult subject matter but needed to be read. Upon completing this book, I agree that
Show More
everyone should read it. It was an eye-opening experience. Maybe if more people read it, we can work together to unite this nation once again and return to the faith of the first Christians. Show Less
LibraryThing member Brendon-Norton
Du Mez provides a sobering and sordid account of evangelical failures when it comes to dealing with abuse, elevating abrasive and arrogant men, and uncritical support of right-wing politics. However, her focus on patriarchy misses the forest for the trees on evangelical support of Trump and
Show More
provides an unconvincing grand explanation of the various threads she pulls together. A more convincing case comes from John Fea's Believe Me, focusing on fear-based politics. Show Less