How could so many Evangelical Christians vote for Donald Trump, a man who seems thoroughly opposed to certain Christian values? That's a question many have been asking. Author Kristin Kobes du Mez attempts to answer it in her book Jesus and John Wayne, which examines how many Evangelicals in America have tended toward patriarchy, militarism, and nationalism over the past several decades. In this episode, she shares her thoughts on some of the difficult issues within the Evangelical movement and whether there is likely to be any major change in the near future. Also in this episode: We find out just how Dutch Kristin is.
Links related to today's episode:
Official book webpage
Kristin's personal website
Blog
Twitter
Facebook
"Jesus and John Wayne" by The Gaither Vocal Band
How could so many Evangelical Christians vote for Donald Trump, a man who seems thoroughly opposed to certain Christian values? That's a question many have been asking. Author Kristin Kobes du Mez attempts to answer it in her book Jesus and John Wayne, which examines how many Evangelicals in America have tended toward patriarchy, militarism, and nationalism over the past several decades. In this episode, she shares her thoughts on some of the difficult issues within the Evangelical movement and whether there is likely to be any major change in the near future. Also in this episode: We find out just how Dutch Kristin is.
Links related to today's episode:
Official book webpage
Kristin's personal website
Blog
Twitter
Facebook
"Jesus and John Wayne" by The Gaither Vocal Band
I have a heart full of questions quieting all my suggestions. What is the meaning of Christian in this American life? I'm feeling awfully foolish spending my life on a message. I look around and I wonder ever if I heard it right.
Amy Mantravadi:Welcome to the(A)Millennial podcast, where we have theological conversations for today's world. I'm your host, Amy Mantravadi, coming to you live from Dayton, Ohio, hometown of Ramon Antonio Gerard Estevez, better known as Martin Sheen. Today's episode has John Wayne in the title, and Martin Sheen is something of an anti-John Wayne. He is best known for starring as a disillusioned U.S. soldier and a Democratic president. Nevertheless, we're happy to claim him. He is an honorary trustee of the Dayton International Peace Museum and received an honorary doctorate from the University of Dayton in 2015, despite the fact that he deliberately failed his entrance exam for that same university so he could pursue an acting career instead. Kids, this just proves that you shouldn't waste your time on school. I want to say a brief word before we move on to today's interview. I will be speaking with Kristin Kobes du Mez, author of the recent book Jesus and John Wayne. In it, she argues that widespread evangelical support for Donald Trump is part of a pattern rather than an aberration. Many evangelical Christians voted for Trump, she suggests, not in spite of his words and behavior, but because of it. Most of them were not holding their nose when they marked their ballots, but doing so in the belief that it was a morally good choice for a man favored by God, even if he did have a few flaws. To make her case, she performs an overview of American evangelicalism from the mid-20th century to the present and shows how evangelicals have been repeatedly attracted to a certain kind of manhood that is strong, combative and overwhelmingly white. Perhaps most controversially, she argues that evangelicals are bound together not so much by any theological beliefs, but rather a common culture that can be found in magazines, music, blogs, and home decor. It is promoted by massive parachurch ministries that in many cases have surpassed the influence and authority of the local church and has sidelined other theological debates in the common goal of preserving patriarchal rule in the home, the Church and society. Among the Christian leaders she discusses are earlier figures like Billy Graham, Bill Gothard, Phyllis Schlafly, and James Dobson, in addition to those more active today, such as Douglas Wilson, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Mark Driscoll, and Eric Metaxas. Her characterizations of these leaders and conclusions about the evangelical movement are sure to upset many who hold these things dear, but I must say that much of what she has to say matches my own experience writing for and conversing with those in the evangelical and Reformed world. I was therefore grieved by the book, not because I believed it to be an unfair attack, but because I found it to be both correct and prophetic. This history of a certain strand of Christianity calls us to consider where we have erred and return to the pure message of the gospel. During the financial crisis of 2008 to 2009, a popular phrase was coined. Certain financial institutions were said to be"too big to fail," meaning that if they could no longer meet their obligations, the damage to the global economy would be so catastrophic that it would be better to bail the failing company out, despite the tremendous cost to the average taxpayer. I think sometimes we treat certain beloved evangelical institutions and leaders in a similar manner. We either believe they are too holy to err, or we think them too important to the spread of the gospel to be destroyed. And so we keep silent about the problems in the church, and as was the case in the 2008 to 2009 financial crisis, the average person is forced to bear the cost while those at the top face few negative consequences for their actions. This is where we must remember two things. First, it is Jesus Christ who upholds his Church and the Spirit of God who draws our hearts to the gospel and salvation. Second, no person or institution is too big to fail at keeping God's commands. We've seen it happen so many times that there is no excuse for persisting in the belief that they cannot fail. Therefore, let us hold everything up to the light of God to expose the darkness within our own hearts. If we treasure sacred cows, the Lord will one day cause us to taste the bitterness of our idolatry. As John Calvin wrote, the heart is a factory of idols, and it is time to shut the factory down. There are so many biblical passages relevant to today's discussion, but I want to focus on one from Peter's first epistle. In it, he writes the following to a group of Christians who were undergoing a period of trial and calls for them to purify themselves and engage in a righteous manner."Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though something strange were happening to you. But to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that at the revelation of his glory, you may also rejoice and be overjoyed. If you were insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer or thief or evildoer or a troublesome meddler, but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name. For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God, and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the sinner? Therefore, those also who suffer according to the will of God are to entrust their souls to a faithful creator in doing what is right." That was First Peter chapter four, verses 12 through 19. Thanks be to God for his Word to us. Let's head to the interview.
Jon Guerra:[MUSIC PLAYS]
Amy Mantravadi:And I'm here with Dr. Kristin Kobes du Mez. She received her bachelor's degree from Dordt College and her PhD from the University of Notre Dame. She's written for the Washington Post, NBC News, Religion News Service, Christianity Today, and Christian Century. She's currently the professor of history and gender studies at Calvin University, and her published works include"A New Gospel for Women: Catherine Bushnell and the Challenge of Christian Feminism" and"Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation, which is the book we're going to talk about today. And you can find her on Twitter and Facebook@kkdumez that's K-K-D-U-M-E-Z. Well, Kristin, thank you so much for joining me today.
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Thanks for having me.
Amy Mantravadi:Now, I wanted to start out with something a little lighthearted, so I wanted to play a game of"How Dutch Are You?" Knowing that you're there at Calvin University in West Michigan- I grew up in West Michigan. I am one quarter Dutch myself, so I know that everybody who lives in West Michigan either is Dutch or has to hear from annoying Dutch people all the time. Ok, are you ready to play the game?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:I am. I am clearly going to win this one.
Amy Mantravadi:All right. So first question, if you aren't Dutch, what are you?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Not much.
Amy Mantravadi:Okay. Ding, ding, ding! That's correct. Have you ever grown tulips?
:Of course. I grew my own tulips for my wedding even, so yeah.
Amy Mantravadi:Wow. That's gotta be like two correct answers there. Have you ever visited Dutch village recently?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Yes, recently.
Amy Mantravadi:Okay. Well that's good. So then this is likely to be correct as well. Have you ever tried on a pair of wooden shoes?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:I own a pair of wooden shoes.
Amy Mantravadi:Oh my goodness! Wow. You are really Dutch. Finish this phrase:"If you can't go to Calvin..."
:See, this is the problem. I don't know this one because I'm not West Michigan Dutch originally, so I'm going to lose this one. Well, and you know, maybe it was just my part of West Michigan, but I think- my dad's a Calvin grad and I think he's told me the phrase is,"If you can't go to Calvin, there's still Hope." Oh, okay. Yeah, and I'm not part of that rivalry. I'm an Iowan.
Amy Mantravadi:Hope College, yes. Have you ever consumed Voortman cookies?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Yeah.
Amy Mantravadi:All right. There we go. Do you know the difference between a Dutch person and a canoe?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:No.
Amy Mantravadi:Well, the answer is that the canoe tips and the Dutch person does not. That was another one I heard growing up. I take no credit for creating it. Do you have a pair of kissing Dutch children or a windmill as part of your landscaping?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Not as part of my landscaping, but I'm an outlier in my family, I think, and my extended families. Yes. I'm falling short.
Amy Mantravadi:All right. Have you ever eaten at Russ' Restaurant? Alternatively, I will accept Windmill Restaurant.
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Of course. Yes. The strawberry tarts are the specialty as far as my family is concerned.
Amy Mantravadi:Very good, very good. And last question, have you ever played Dutch Blitz?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:I have not. Again, I'm from a little different quarter, I'm afraid.
Amy Mantravadi:Well, I've got to be honest. I grew up in West Michigan, and I haven't played Dutch Blitz either. So I think that was pretty good. I think I'll give you at least a"Mostly Dutch" rating.
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Yeah, mostly. I've definitely Dutch. My mom actually immigrated from the Netherlands, so I think I come by it a little too honestly, but I moved to West Michigan 16 years ago, but if you know West Michigan, as you do, you're always an outsider. So I never really feel like a West Michigan Dutch person. I'm an Iowa transplant, and I think I always will be.
Amy Mantravadi:Well, very much understood. It was my great-grandparents that came over from the Netherlands, and if you know Calvary Church there in Grand Rapids, they were founding members of Calvary Church. So my parents both grew up in Grand Rapids, but I actually grew up in Muskegon, so I almost was a little bit of an outsider as well.
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Yeah, that's outside.
Amy Mantravadi:All right. Well, turning from that very lighthearted game to the much more serious content of your book, I wanted to just begin the interview by reviewing a little bit of recent history that probably everyone's going to be aware of, but it still bears some repeating. On January 6th of this year, supporters of Donald Trump held a rally in Washington, DC titled"Save America." The speakers that day, including the president himself, repeated false claims that President Trump had won the 2020 election. There were calls to march on Congress and have trial by combat to save the country. Thousands of people then marched the U.S. Capitol and engaged in numerous acts of violence, in many cases forcing their way into the building and possibly also being let in by officers sympathetic to their cause. Once in the building, they were successful in entering the Senate chamber, where they held an impromptu prayer meeting, and the offices of Democratic lawmakers. They destroyed government property, attacked police officers, and hurled racist slurs at black members of the Capitol Hill police force. Five people died as a result of the violence, but what was perhaps most disturbing about the whole thing was the symbols on display. Protestors proudly displayed their white supremacist beliefs. A gallows and noose was erected outside the Capitol, one man paraded a Confederate flag through the Capitol while another wore a t-shirt labeled"Camp Auschwitz", and amid all these were signs that read"Jesus Saves" and other Christian slogans. Some protestors kneeled to pray before storming the Capitol and many believed they were carrying out the will of God. President Trump was immediately faulted by many for inciting insurrection, and a week later he was impeached by the House of Representatives. He currently awaits trial in the U.S. Senate. Even many Republican lawmakers have faulted President Trump for providing fuel to a movement that was known to be extreme and had the potential for violence. But it was very interesting to see how some of the president's most prominent evangelical supporters responded. Eric Metaxas tweeted the day of the riot,"There is no doubt the election was fraudulent. That is the same today as yesterday. There is no doubt Antifa have infiltrated the protesters today and planned this. This is political theater and anyone who buys it is a sucker. Fight for justice and pray for justice. God bless America." On Facebook, Franklin Graham compared the ten Republican House members who voted in favor of impeachment to Judas Iscariot. Al Mohler in an interview with The Houston Chronicle condemned the violence and faulted President Trump for inciting it, but said he did not regret his support for Trump and seemed to suggest that he couldn't have predicted the turn of events. He said,"But what we have seen is the true character of Donald Trump come out in a way that I do not find that- I don't accept was merely inevitable." That's a lot of background before getting to a question, but I mentioned it all because it demonstrates what I feel is the strongest evidence to date of your assessment of Christian nationalist tendencies within American evangelicalism is absolutely correct. How did you personally feel witnessing these events in the past month and what did they reveal about the state of evangelicalism in America?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Yeah, so I've been researching the topic of white evangelical masculinity and militarism, and violence is a subtext of that rhetorical violence, actual violence in terms of foreign policy, kind of culture wars militancy for years now, and so I've always really had the potential for this kind of violence on my radar. So on January 6, especially the way the rhetoric was really amping up since the election, I was not all that surprised to be honest. That said, I mean, you listed many examples of the Christian symbolism on display. In addition, we had the Proud Boys kneeling in prayer, and if you hear that video of the prayer, it's a very quintessentially evangelical prayer that they're offering. So I think the real question is, you know, what are we looking at? Are we looking at extremist fringe? Are we looking at something much closer to the mainstream? And how we answer that question is probably going to have a pretty big effect on what we're going to see, or how that question answers itself and what we're going to see in the next four years or even the next four months. But that was actually a central project or problem of my book: When am I looking at something that is really fringe? And when is, when am I looking at something that really is mainstream? And extremist rhetoric didn't necessarily mean as I found through my research that it needed to be located at the fringe, so I kept trying to tease out what elements of the undeniable kind of mainstream white evangelicalism are in accord with the more extremist rhetoric, with even the more extremist actions. And when I looked at what was happening on January 6th, and then I looked very closely, following on Facebook, listening to people, asking people I knew,"What were you hearing in different evangelical circles?" It honestly wasn't very encouraging. Many people might very briefly say, you know,"I denounce violence, but..." And then there was a lot that came after that. And not everybody even denounced it. There was a lot of,"Well, what do you expect? Push people so far..." There was a lot of, as you suggest, blaming Antifa, denying culpability, and there was a lot of continuing rhetoric of pray for strength, for courage- language of kind of revolution and needing to stand up for what was right. So, I mean, it still is an open question to me, but what I do know is that the history that I've researched demonstrates that for generations now, conservative evangelicals have been embracing militant rhetoric and militarism. They have been condoning violence for the sake of bringing order if that violence is wielded by somebody that they deem is righteous or appointed by God. And they have really fostered an us versus them mentality- cultivated that and promoted that. And when you put those pieces together, it makes it- we saw on January 6, certainly not beyond the pale. And it makes me worry about the ability for evangelicals to strongly denounce and- not just denounce it, but strongly resist this drift towards domestic violence, drift towards even authoritarianism- that they may not be equipped to really do what needs to be done on that front. That said, then part of me goes back to, you know, there's a big difference between using this rhetoric- or there can be, and not always, but there can be a big difference between embracing this sort of militant, militaristic rhetoric, holding up this ideal of violence for the sake of good, and then actually carrying through with it. So to me that remains an open question, yet what we saw on January 6 was not terribly surprising, and I really can't tell the future. I can't tell where things are going to go, but I think there are deep divisions right now within white evangelicalism around precisely these questions.
Amy Mantravadi:And, you know, it's interesting you talking about how do we know whether[it] represents the extreme or the mainstream and the diverse analyses we've seen of this event certainly indicate that people are not in any way united on the answer to that question, and how they feel about that tends to be determined a lot by where they stand. If they stand in a certain political spot, they're more likely to see what happened on January 6 as a few extreme people taking advantage of a movement. If they are in another place, they're likely to paint everyone who voted for Trump with the same brush. So I agree that for you as a historian, that's a really thorny problem to try to sort out. And I appreciate you attempting to do that in your book, but such a big question. It's almost more about starting a discussion than being able to finish it. And a single book- we'll probably be discussing it for many decades to come. I'd like to address your assertion that the evangelical community in its current form has been created by glossing over certain theological points in pursuit of a few matters of supreme importance, kind of dumbing down a Christianity that turns it into more of a lifestyle marketed by booksellers or on coffee cups than a robust system of doctrine and practice. The turning of Christianity into a consumer enterprise where people church hop based on personal preference and listen to recorded sermons by celebrities rather than the words of their own pastors created an interesting situation in 2016. You write that,"During the Trump campaign, many pastors were surprised to find that they wielded little influence over people in the pews. What they didn't realize was that they were up against a more powerful system of authority and evangelical popular culture that reflected and reinforced a compelling ideology and a coherent worldview." You add that many Christian leaders didn't believe the poll numbers they were seeing about evangelical support for Trump and attributed it to a misdefinition of the word evangelical, which is certainly something I've heard a lot over the years. Who would you say holds the greatest power and influence in evangelicalism today? Are parachurch ministries coming alongside churches to help them or effectively just supplanting them?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Oh, where is the authority within evangelicalism? That is a huge question because it's so diffused, and I think that certain denominations hold quite a bit of authority- not unlimited. So the SBC would be I think top among- even though they would say they're not a denomination, I'll consider them one for our purposes. The SBC holds a lot of power. Christian publishing has held an enormous amount of power: something like Lifeway Christian Books, previously Family Christian Bookstores. That's a kind of hidden power that we don't- that we're blind to. But thinking about what defines what is acceptable, what is good? What is"Christian" is and has been for many people what appears in their Christian bookstores, what appears on Christian radio. So I think these kinds of media networks and distribution networks are very important. Individual leaders hold less authority than most people think, than the media I think tends to give them. And frankly, I think they hold less authority than they think that they hold, because what we're seeing here is after really decades of cultivating this e vangelicalism s ubculture, it's a populist movement as much as anything. And so you've got leaders who appear to be leading, but if they try to lead and veer off or correct or challenge, they often find themselves kind of set out on the curb, defined out of the community even. And so you can be a leader if you stay out in front of this populist movement, but as soon as you try to actually exercise leadership and maybe change something, then the limits of your leadership become very quickly apparent. So right now I would in any conception of evangelical leadership, we have to look at some leaders, but really at the populist dynamics here as well. We need to look at certain denominational structures, but also these media empires that really do determine who is platformed, who i s promoted. We have to look at these networks and conferences, all of the above. It's a very complex kind of network of alliances and distribution networks that determine who has power, and it's constantly in flux, so it's very interesting to look at. It's hard to describe, but when you start spelling this out, I think it really rings true to a lot of people who are inside this culture who bump up against these. This is really how it works.
Amy Mantravadi:Yeah. I mean, I definitely have to agree with that from my experience within evangelicalism. And it's so different from the historic Christian system where you'd have bishops and a whole system of- a whole hierarchy of authority. And I'm not saying that one system is better than the other, or one system's without flaws and the other one has flaws, but every system has both good and bad aspects. And the aspect of evangelicalism is that because there isn't that kind of hierarchical structure, like you said, it can take on very much a cart leading the horse kind of situation. Yeah, I think that's a really good observation. Moving on, advocates of complementarian and/or patriarchal views of Christianity often present their teachings as nothing but what the Church has taught for 2000 years. However, the following the sexual revolution of the 1960s, a number of conservative theologians here in North America promoted an ideal o f female submission that was rooted in Creation: in the very definition of what a woman is rather than something that came about as a result of the Fall. This was affirmed by the Danvers Statement put out by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood i n the late 1980s and included i n an update to the Southern Baptist Convention's official doctrinal statement, the Baptist Faith and Message in 1998. You also note another doctrinal trend among theologians connected to the CBMW related to definitions of the Trinity: God the Son has been described as eternally submissive to God the Father in his very divinity, and this is then linked to the submission of women to men. This led to a major controversy in 2016, when those with a good knowledge of historic theology noted that it violated a number of principles held by the Church, dating back to the Council of Nicaea and represents a kind of Subordinationism or Semi- A rianism. Nevertheless, personally for me, as a witness to some of that debate, I was struck by how many prominent evangelical leaders considered these Trinitarian disagreements to be a little importance within the complementarian movement. Given the kind of dumbing down of theology within the evangelical sphere, have we reached the point where we are no longer able to effectively discern or be alarmed by major theological errors, or have we become lulled into a place where as long as s omething seems to support our view of gender, we don't see a need to inquire into i ts biblical a nd theological correctness? That's sort of the feeling I've g otten. Did you find that also when you were doing your research?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Yeah. So we're talking about the doctrine of the Trinity- pretty essential doctrine of"traditional Christianity." We could also add baptism: infant or adult baptism historically has been an issue that deeply divided Christians, but people are cool with that now. Pre-millennialism, post-millennialism, or amillennialism: all these things too really are just side issues now, and what has really been elevated are issues of patriarchy and certain views of gender and sexuality. And so these kind of political and cultural values that- have displaced traditional theological disputes. And what that means then is it can be very hard to have theological conversations around these issues, right? Because theology does speak into issues of family, gender, sexuality, and the like, but those conversations- we aren't having them often enough well enough because theology has lost its power. New definitions of orthodoxy define out of hand who gets to participate in these conversations, right? Who has legitimacy. And so if you're coming with a view that challenges patriarchy, you're not even part of the conversation, or on LGBTQ issues, already you're defined out of the fold. And so you might have your Bible wide open and you might have centuries of theology that you're going to bring into this conversation, and it's not going to matter, and it's not just on issues of gender and sexuality either. I think that's what we've seen on a wide array of political and cultural issues. So when I talk with immigration activists, those who are working in faith communities and- just despair."We have the Bible verses. We have the'welcome, the stranger,' the hospitality, we have all of these and we can hold our Bibles open, sit down with evangelical Christians, and we get absolutely nowhere." And I think that's important to understand that we all come with cultural lenses. We all approach the scriptures with cultural loyalties shaping what Bible passages we elevate, which ones we ignore or dismiss or explain away. We all do that, but I think evangelicals have a tradition of maintaining that they don't: maintaining that they are- this is plain reading of the scriptures, this is traditional Christianity, this is just truth. And so by being blind to the way that the cultural shapes them and the way that they approach the Scriptures, that makes it really difficult to have these-precisely the theological conversations that the Church needs to be having. And by the Church, I mean the broader Church, across racial differences, across denominational differences, and across national boundaries. Those conversations are very difficult to have.
Amy Mantravadi:Many prominent American Christians, from enthusiastic Trump supporters like Eric Metaxas to those like Rod Dreher who have heavily criticized Trump, are all bound together in the sense that traditional Christianity in this country- that is, in the United States- is under attack, and something must be actively done to protect our way of life. Do you see any legitimate basis for this persecution narrative so common among evangelicals, or is it impossible to divide it from racist and patriarchal sentiments? That was one of the main things I wondered reading the book, because as long as I can remember, I can remember people having the sense that things were going in the wrong direction and Christianity was going to start to be persecuted. I think you can make a case for maybe some things that have contributed to that, but how do you think about that persecution narrative that seems to be so common?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Yeah, it's almost a both/and in that it's not separable from- the persecution complex, as I think many people would describe it today, is not separable from a sense of entitlement, a sense of exercising power, not just carving out a space to exist, but by- You look at the way that religious freedom is used in conservative evangelical circles: it's a slippery term because sometimes it means,"So I have freedom to practice my faith and live out my faith." It also often means also,"Christianity is the established faith of this land. This is a Christian nation, and it is our job as faithful Christians to keep it faithful, to return it to faithfulness and to reassert a kind of Christian values." And so they are very much linked, not just in the rhetoric, but also in the practice. That said, I think there is something to the sense among conservative Christians, particularly conservative white Christians, that whereas their ways of doing things and seeing things used to be more dominant, more centered, that with a greater diversity and with different trends that have gone against traditional values as they would frame them, particularly since the 1960s- that's a really critical decade for many conservatives where they see things really starting to go wrong. There is a sense that they no longer represent the mainstream. And I think that's been a really disorienting experience, particularly in light of the last decade or two, with changes on cultural views on sexuality, the Obergefell ruling, and the question of where this culture is going. Now, that rhetoric has been around literally for decades, and it's always a,"Urgent! Urgent!" like craziest situation. So I don't want to discount that, right? Much of this is a manufactured panic, but there is some truth to their experience, particularly through the Obama administration, that really rang true to what they had been telling themselves for decades. And so that kind of converged in 2016, that they felt they were losing: not just they were losing dominance, they were losing kind of their hold on culture. And at the same time, they felt that because of LGBTQ issues in particular and the way religious freedom was being interpreted towards their communities, that they could no longer live according to their values. Now, I want to return very briefly to this side note that for decades conservative, Christian leaders had been stoking this fear that,"This is decline. We are being marginalized. Our way of life is under threat. And we hold these traditional values. We need to restore America and restore American Christianity." And part of that was I'm sure what they actually thought, but it's also important to acknowledge that that rhetoric and that fear-mongering also was absolutely critical to building the infrastructure of the Religious Right, to securing incredible amounts of money from small donors. It was critical to building local churches and religious empires from people like Jerry Falwell and Mark Driscoll. I mean, this is how it worked. And so part of it, legitimate fear, a lot of it also fear that was being actively stoked by leaders who stood to gain an awful lot by keeping their followers afraid and promising their followers protection in power.
Amy Mantravadi:Yeah, I originally was educated in political science, nd one thing that I learned from those classes that I took in college is the dirty little secret that political strategists know, which is that even though everybody says they don't want to see negative campaign ads, negative campaign ads, anything that appeals to fear is very effective at driving people's vote. And we've- I think the past couple presidential election cycles, we've certainly seen both from evangelical Christians and I think almost in a mirror image on the other side of people who were just terrified of Trump and what he was going to do- I think that we've seen people's votes and behavior, not even just on voting day, but in all society being driven very much by fear. And it speaks, I guess, to just our self instinct for preservation. But like you said, that fear narrative is very convenient as well. Even if you happen to believe it, it's also very convenient for gaining power and wealth and influence. Yeah, I think that's a good analysis there. As a female writer within the broadly evangelical sphere, I've certainly faced some criticism, and interestingly, the most biting comments have come from women rather than men. This has led me to wonder why women would support extreme versions of patriarchy, and certainly there are a lot of women who do. I think you may have hit on a possible reason in your book. You explained that,"For many housewives, the new opportunities feminism promised were not opportunities at all. To those who had few employable skills and no means or desire to escape the confines of their homes, feminism seemed to denigrate their very identity and threatened their already precarious existence. It was better to play the cards that they were dealt." Even so, you also talk about Phyllis Schafly, a successful and ambitious woman who presumably could have taken advantage of many of the changes brought about by feminism, but who nevertheless became a champion of patriarchal ideology. So what do you see going on here? Did you come to any conclusion as to that phenomenon?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Yeah, Schafly herself said she didn't need feminism because look at her, right? Look at everything she was doing. So she was just this gadfly and frustrated feminists to no end. But yeah, I think there are a lot of different reasons that conservative women would support a patriarchal order, one of which is many, many Christian women have been taught that that is how they are faithful to God, and I don't want to discount that belief in- genuine desire to be obedient- that this is what girls are taught from a very young age. This is what parents teach their children, what schools inculcate, particularly in their daughters. And if you are a believer, you generally want to be obedient: to be a good Christian. So generations of women have been taught that this is what it is to be a good Christian, to be a good Christian woman, a good Christian wife and mother. So that's part of it. There's also power that comes to women who are able to accept or even flourish in these roles. Some women are perfectly happy staying at home, being primarily identified as wife and mother. For some, it suits them perfectly well. And for those women, it does seem a challenge to their identity that other women perhaps are telling them there's more, there's more to life or,"That's great and all, but you're not living up to your potential." And so it gets very personal very quickly. But for women who feel comfortable in that sphere- for women who maybe have played by those rules, whether they were comfortable or not, there is a certain power that comes to women who play these roles, right? They are promised protection. They are promised kind of being placed on a pedestal. They are promised that they will have the power to"influence" and that they are cherished and that they are loved for fulfilling those roles. So again, if that works for you, and if you find fulfillment and perhaps you have a husband who is"patriarchal" but very kind and loving, then what's the big deal? What's the problem? So each woman kind of experiences this ideology in her own way, and each woman is wired differently. And so I think there's just such a range of experiences. I've talked to so many women, and for some, it's all great. For some it's like,"Yeah, lip service to this, but here's what it really looks like in my marriage, but, you know, fine." And then there are others who have been utterly crushed, utterly crushed by these teachings: who have left the faith, who have- are still dealing with a religious trauma, emotional trauma, and really broken lives. And so there's just such a range of experiences, but for white Christian women too, there is a broader social power that they participate in, and so by fulfilling their roles within this culture, they are then elevated to positions of social power as well, and I think that's important to recognize too.
Amy Mantravadi:Yeah, that's a good point. About a decade and a half ago, a movement famously titled by Colin Hansen"Young, Restless, and Reformed" became prominent within American evangelicalism. You note that it was characterized by a resurgence of Calvinist theology, but one that was linked very closely with a certain view of gender. The most prominent leader in that movement was probably John Piper, and it was largely through him and his followers that two individuals who I must describe as highly problematic, got introduced to a much wider evangelical audience: Mark Driscoll and Douglas Wilson. I don't have time to go into all the things that made those two men problematic, but you do a good job of highlighting many of them in your book. Both men have been characterized by their patriarchal views and highly combative tendencies, as well as the presence of profanity and sexual content in their writings. During that time period, they were promoted in various ways by Desiring God, The Gospel Coalition and Christianity Today. I've personally seen how the writings of these two men have made their way into the churches I've attended and are still being shared on social media by my friends, even though many evangelical leaders have backed away from them. It troubles me that they could be promoted by so many Christian leaders and that so many red flags were ignored. Could you speak a bit to that complicated legacy of the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement, and does the way Driscoll and Wilson's flaws were excused provide a kind of example in miniature of how many evangelicals would treat Donald Trump?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Yeah, exactly. So a little autobiographical background: I'm a Calvinist. I'm very Reformed. I'm Dutch Reformed. I grew up in...
Amy Mantravadi:I never would have guessed that with Calvin University that you were a Calvinist!
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Well, you know, it's so funny because I am on Twitter a lot and my research is at the intersection of religion and politics. So there's lots of potential for controversy, but seriously, the most controversial thing that I've said on Twitter is probably coming out as a Calvinist cause so many people there don't- I don't have Calvin University on my bio, mostly to cut back on the number of letters that my president gets. So I grew up deeply Reformed. I took an entire course on the- Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I can talk Calvinism with the best of them. And then I went off to grad school and this was in the late nineties, and it was at that point that I kind of was introduced to a broader evangelicalism and realized that I was coming from a very niche location within American Christianity. But right around then that's when Desiring God was all the rage and evangelicals were discovering Reformed theology. And I was like,"Yes, this is our moment in the sun! I am Calvinist, and this is us, and look at- we have all this offer." This is exactly what I had always been told, right? We had the best Christianity. We had the best theology and here we are, and now you guys are discovering it. Welcome! But then I discovered soon that I wasn't really included in this Young, Restless, and Reformed movement. I might've initially identified with them. I don't think they would have identified with me as a young, single graduate student intellectual, right? There was not really a place for me in that community. And so I had to kind of tease that out, right? Who are they? Because I'm Calvinist, but there's- are there differences here? Right? And their covenantal theology didn't look like what I thought it was, and my interpretation of Calvin, which had been given to me through Dutch Canadian professors- so no Christian nationalism in the mix, at least American Christian nationalism, not at all, just very different. And so then I started paying attention to what- who was welcomed into those circles, who was a"brother in Christ." And that's where things get really disturbing. So you have somebody like Mark Driscoll and in the book, I detail just what- he was so deeply misogynistic, militaristic, crass, abusive in terms of how he wielded his power in his church. And he was- and this was all known. None of this was secret. He was very open about who he was, what he said. And some evangelical leaders were a little bit uncomfortable, but kind of also a little envious. He was successful. Many evangelical pastors were patterning their own ministries after his, and somebody like John Piper can kind of chuckle a little bit and,"Well, you know I wouldn't go along with everything he says and, you know, take issue with his interpretation of Song of Songs, but, you know, he's really putting the gospel out there." Somebody like Douglas Wilson, perhaps even more extreme. I don't know. It's hard to judge. But definitely he just revels in being provocative and being shocking and identifying himself over against this mainstream evangelicalism that doesn't have the spine that he has, and his offensiveness is his badge of honor. He too said extremely troubling things about race in particular. Well, not in particular, he said a lot of troubling things about sex and sexual abuse and gender and also race. And then to have somebody like Piper again, give them cover. And you know,"He's a brother in Christ," and the way that the word gospel was used: you have The Gospel Coalition, this is gospel truth, and he's advancing the gospel. It really made me start to wonder, what gospel are they talking about? But it is such powerful language when you use language like"brother in Christ." It's very exclusive, but it can cover so much. Use language like,"This is the gospel witness." Um, what is your gospel? And I really tried to make this process visible, and hopefully some of these questions more prominent when we look back over that history.
Amy Mantravadi:Complementarian leaders, such as Al Mohler or John Piper, have tended to dismiss the idea that their ideology of gender contributes to the abuse of women. They have even suggested that egalitarianism makes women more vulnerable by removing the concept of male protection. Given your study of the history of the complementarian movement, which you've described as"soft patriarchy," do you believe that these teachings are naturally leading to the abuse of women in various ways, or is it the hijacking and twisting of complementarianism that has led to these abuses? In other words, do you personally believe that complementarianism is redeemable or is it inevitably part of the problem?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Yeah, such a hard question. I'm going to answer it many different ways because on the one hand, I know complementarian men who would never abuse a woman. So on an individual basis, complementarian beliefs and even practices do not lead to physical sexual abuse of women. They need not, right? So on an individual basis, that's very important to acknowledge. More broadly, I don't know that complementarian or patriarchal religious beliefs would lead somebody to abuse who otherwise wouldn't. I don't know. My discipline- history- does not equip me to accurately address that question, so it's an open question for me. There are some studies in the social sciences that are positing some links, but that's really not where my focus has been. What I have seen is how these teachings inhibit victims from responding to situations of abuse in effective ways, how women who have embraced the"God given" teachings that they must submit to their husbands, that they must sexually submit to their husbands, that their husbands have power over them and power over their bodies, this really kind of authoritarian structure, and where children must submit to their parents and parents have absolute authority over their children. These teachings individually, I think, inhibit the ways that people can respond when they find themselves in terrifying and abusive situations, and it also constrains the response on the part of the wider community. And that pattern, I think, is undeniable: that when abuse surfaces within conservative religious organizations, there is a real struggle for members of those communities- for bystanders to call out that abuse, to hold perpetrators accountable, particularly when those perpetrators hold positions of authority. So fathers in their own families and pastors in their own churches, leaders in their own organizations- that the teachings of submission and of authority along with protecting the brand- and there's nothing unique to conservative evangelicalism in a desire to protect the brand. But protect the"witness of the church," just kind of strengthens that. That's where I see the effects of complementarian or patriarchal teachings, or authority structures really shaping it, really entrapping victims and producing this kind of second tragedy. So the abuse being the first tragedy, and then the second tragedy, when I hear from survivors often, what is even more difficult to process is the way in which their family members, their church communities dismissed what was happening, did not help them, many times ended up blaming women for their abuse, even young children for their abuse. And it's that kind of second betrayal that is often the hardest for survivors to come to terms with. And so I would suggest that we need to look at teachings and practices within patriarchal systems to understand that. I'll also take things a little bit further and say that my first book actually made me rethink this question entirely. And it's A New Gospel for Women, and it's a history of Christian feminism looking particularly at Catherine Bushnell, who was an anti-trafficking activist. So in modern terminology, she worked with prostitutes and worked to restore and worked to change legislation and to really advocate for women. And she did so as a Christian in the late 19th and early 20th century, and after repeated encounters of quote"respectable Christian men" who are perpetrating abuse against women- and she saw the same patterns of condoning this abuse, of blaming the victims in the late 19th, early 20th century- she finally concluded in her words,"The crime must be the fruit of the theology." And she in fact, did go back to the teachings of the submission of women and claimed that she did not find it rooted in Creation at all. She found it rooted in the Fall and therefore Jesus brought redemption and Jesus brought the liberation of women. And she claimed that any person who was told to submit to another person- that that is in itself abuse, that is in itself injustice. And so, you know, there's a theological argument that we can have, and we're going to have different opinions, but I think I wouldn't want to displace that. I think we can have that know. Is this actually in accord with the word of God, or is it a distortion of the word of God? And if it is a distortion than it is at its heart, I think, potentially abusive, even not by action, but just in its existence. And so yes, many complicated ways to approach that question. It's not a simplistic question, but it's definitely one that we need to wrestle with actively and we need to do so with nuance and in community.
Amy Mantravadi:Yeah. And for me, the biggest issue is that these are questions that you really can't ask very loudly within the evangelical and Reformed world, the conservative end of it. And that is my biggest concern. Like ffter all it was revealed how many sexual abuse cases there were in the Southern Baptist Convention over the past few decades- Was it two years ago that all came on in The Houston Chronicle?- And it seemed like as soon as they asked the question I just asked you, it was immediately shut down."Well, of course not. Of course it's not a problem with the theology." And whether or not we ultimately determine that there's any problem with the theology, I think that such enormous moral failures require us to sit in that discomfort for a little while and be willing to really consider the question and give it- Asking that question is almost an act of lamenting and we need to be willing to lament over what has happened and consider if, like you said, when you're seeing so much terrible fruit everywhere, is there something rotten at the core? And it could be, like I said- and I'm not trying to come to any conclusion either over what this means for whether only men should be pastors or whatever. You know, my personal opinion is always that I'm okay with the traditional Christian position of only men being elders. But I think sometimes because we're so afraid of what change can mean, we're not even willing to ask the questions, even when terrible things are happening. And I think we need to, like I said, sit for a little while in that very uncomfortable position of considering that we might possibly be wrong about something. So yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry.
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Quick pushback too, against the blaming egalitarianism, because that's exactly what we heard for abuse, because it takes away men's role as protectors. And there as a Calvinist, I'll push back and say, you know, that's really assuming that men who are given this authority, who are told to wield this authority are somehow untainted, right? That we can trust that men are going to be wielding this authority appropriately, and that this authority is not in any way corrupted, and I think that history does not bear that out. And so some more humility with who we give power to and what checks are placed on that power is very much needed, and that kind of argument against egalitarianism really neglects the potential for corruption of that patriarchal power, I think.
Amy Mantravadi:You end your book with the sentence,"What was once done might also be undone." My question is, can this be undone? Do you think that there is likely to be any real soul searching among evangelicals over the issues you brought up in your book in the years to come? Or is this such a self-perpetuating cycle that it can't reasonably be stopped anytime soon?
Kristin Kobes du Mez:Yeah. When I finished the book, I was more pessimistic. I was very pessimistic, so much so that that last sentence was not in the book originally, and towards the end of edits, my editor came to me and was like,"This is really depressing. Could you give us something? You know, you can't leave your readers in this place." And so I thought about it and I thought, okay, what can I give them? And then I thought- I was like,"I've got nothing," right? I felt the same way. After tracing this history, it's so deeply enmeshed. It is generation upon generation packaged and sold as biblical truth. No, I wasn't thinking I was going to change any minds. I really just wanted to testify as a historian- to trace it and to hold it up for us to see. And then- so he, my editor, said,"Okay, I respect that." And then two days later he was like,"No, no, Kristin- just give us something. We need something here." And that's when I gave him that last sentence, and honestly, it just- I was embarrassed to even give it to him because it felt too feeble. But I do believe that, and I believe that history is absolutely critical: that if we know this history, if we know how this came to be, we can start to see that,"Hey, actually, it wasn't inevitable." That there were individual choices made at different moments. There were alternatives, there were paths that were not taken. And we can see the motives of some of the people who are making these decisions, and we can start to ask, is this faithful Christianity? Is this in fact where we want to be? And I think when we have this history in front of us, it's much easier to start asking those questions. And we have this common understanding of the past. And I will say that since the book has published, I've become in some ways more hopeful, despite everything that's happened in the country, because I've seen how many people have really latched onto that last sentence: how many people have seen that as an invitation, as a challenge. I have been shocked by how many of my readers are conservative evangelicals themselves- are people who are coming out of that place and that they are embracing this story. I hear from so many people saying some version of,"This is the story of my life." And also saying,"What can we do? What can we do to undo this? Where do we start?" And I did not anticipate that enthusiastic reception of this book in those pockets, not at all. Again, I really just wanted to testify. So what can be- it's going to take a lot of individual acts of courage because there is a cost. There is sometimes an enormous cost for people to speak out, to reject some of these teachings, these values. Families are broken over this. Church communities are rent asunder, relationships are ruined, and sometimes the cost isn't very high. You just never really know until you take some of these steps, but I've heard a lot in the last few months from organizations, from institutions, from individuals, leaders asking this question, and what can we do while still acknowledging their constraints? So a university, a magazine, a university is going to lose students, maybe, or donors, a magazine losing donors, their subscribers. What happens if a pastor speaks out and he gets kicked out of his church? That's happened. So I think the constraints are still very present and very evident, and there's maybe more will to change than people acting on it at this point. And so to me, it's an open question where things are going to go. Are we going to kind of settle back into a status quo, where some of these deep, deep differences, theological political differences are papered over by language like,"We're all brothers and sisters in Christ, and we're all good here." Or have the last four years and the last three months made that impossible- that we can't patch that back together? I'm not sure. The status quo tends to be very powerful, almost like a gravitational pull, but in my lifetime, I have never seen this level of soul searching among at least- I don't know how sizable- a fair sized group of evangelicals, including many evangelical leaders. So I am still going to be hopeful that something is going to change. How deep that change goes is not yet clear.
Amy Mantravadi:Well, that's probably a good place to end on both a hopeful note and a challenge for all of us. I'd really encourage everyone to read your book, and I'm so grateful that you wrote it because- I don't know, maybe you're a little bit insulated from some of the consequences of writing something like this, but I can assure you that writing a book like this, a lot of people would lose their jobs and would- I mean, I've found even just- I don't normally criticize evangelical leaders by name, but the few occasions I've done so, oh man! Even if you're really careful about the way you do it, it can be very punishing. But it's important to speak prophetically on occasion, so I appreciate your willingness to do that, and thank you so much for coming on the podcast to talk to me today.
Speaker 4:Oh, thank you. It was a great conversation.
Jon Guerra:[MUSIC PLAYS]
Speaker 6:I was grateful for the opportunity to speak to Kristin today about her book. Unfortunately, I was only able to focus on part of what she had to say in that book. There was a mountain of possible questions that I did not ask. I would highly encourage you to read this work of history for yourself and draw your own conclusions about what she has to say. Whether or not you agree with some of her conclusions, I think there is no doubt that she has been very thorough in her research and presented a lot of good food for thought. As always, today's music comes from the song"Citizens" by Christian recording artist Jon Guerra. His newest album, Keeper of Days, is a real treat, and I invite you to check it out. Thank you so much for listening to today's discussion. Allow me to wrap up with an admonition from scripture."Therefore, since we also have such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let's rid ourselves of every obstacle and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let's run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking only at Jesus, the originator and perfecter of the faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising the shame and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." Amen. Come Lord Jesus. Have a great week.
Jon Guerra:Is there a way to live always living in enemy hallways? Don't know my foes from my friends and don't know my friends anymore. Power has several prizes. Handcuffs can come in all sizes. Love has a million disguises, but winning is simply not one.