In reviewing Kristin Kobes Du Mez’s Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation, it’s important to acknowledge a degree of personal investment. Like the author of the original review, I approach this book not from a position of detached objectivity, but as someone deeply engaged with the subject matter. As a content creator for johnchen.net focusing on insightful analysis, and recognizing the critical lens Du Mez applies to white evangelicalism – a group I identify with and have studied – this review aims to expand on the original analysis while optimizing for an English-speaking audience interested in understanding the complex relationship between faith, culture, and figures like John Wayne.
Having examined numerous works throughout my career, this analysis distinguishes itself through its deeply personal resonance. It mirrors the original reviewer’s cri de coeur, responding to Du Mez’s own passionate and critical examination of a cultural and religious phenomenon. My objective is to delve deeper into the themes presented, ensuring this exploration is not only comprehensive but also SEO-optimized for those seeking to understand the cultural impact of figures like John Wayne on American evangelicalism.
Like the original reviewer, my background provides a unique perspective. While not raised in an evangelical household, my personal journey led me to embrace evangelical Christianity. This path, diverging from a mainline Protestant upbringing, allows me to appreciate the historical context Du Mez explores, particularly the evolution of evangelicalism in the latter half of the 20th century. My engagement isn’t purely academic; it’s informed by direct experience within evangelical communities, serving in pastoral roles, teaching in Christian institutions, and raising a family within this tradition. This dual perspective – both participant and observer – enriches my understanding and critique of Du Mez’s thesis, particularly as it relates to the idealized masculine figures, such as John Wayne, that have shaped evangelical identity.
The original review eloquently captures the essence of Du Mez’s argument: that white conservative evangelicalism in America is profoundly shaped by cultural forces, arguably as much as by theological doctrines. John Wayne emerges as a central symbol in this dynamic, embodying a militant, masculine, and nationalistic ethos deeply intertwined with notions of American exceptionalism and white supremacy. This ethos, coupled with a pervasive sense of being under siege, has fostered a worldview characterized by stark binaries – light versus darkness, purity versus corruption – with evangelicals consistently positioning themselves on the side of righteousness.
Du Mez’s historical narrative, stretching from Theodore Roosevelt to Donald Trump, meticulously uncovers the troubling entanglement of evangelicalism with what she identifies as “Christian nationalism.” This includes a disturbing history of racial injustice, uncritical endorsement of warfare, particularly in Vietnam and the War on Terror, and the perpetuation of a patriarchal system that has inflicted significant trauma. The book culminates in examining the evangelical embrace of Donald Trump, arguing it was not an anomaly but a predictable outcome of the cultural trajectory Du Mez outlines. The review accurately reflects the discomfort and introspection this narrative provokes, acknowledging feelings of embarrassment, anger, defensiveness, and profound sadness.
The reviewer highlights a critical point: the tragic substitution of scriptural authority with an “evangelical magisterium” built on pragmatism, experience, and sentimentality. Du Mez effectively illustrates this phenomenon across various historical junctures, particularly from the Cold War era to the Trump presidency. The consequences, as detailed in the book, are indeed tragic, revealing an overemphasis on political influence and a departure from core Christian values. The warning from Alexis de Tocqueville, regarding the perils of an overly politicized religion, resonates powerfully in this context, a sentiment the original review aptly underscores.
However, the original review also offers a nuanced critique of Du Mez’s approach, particularly concerning historical interpretation and methodology. Drawing on Beth Barton Schweiger’s concept of “pastoral imagination,” the review suggests Du Mez’s narrative, while impactful, sometimes lacks empathy and a comprehensive understanding of the historical subjects. There’s a concern that by selecting the most egregious examples, Du Mez paints an overly damning picture, potentially neglecting the complexities and nuances within the history of white evangelicalism.
To further this point, the review contrasts Du Mez’s approach with historians like Molly Worthen, Lauren Frances Turek, and Emily Conroy-Krutz, who offer more balanced and multifaceted analyses of evangelicalism. These historians, as the review notes, strive to understand evangelicals within their own historical contexts, avoiding a reductionist narrative of blame and condemnation. This comparison illuminates a crucial distinction between history as evidence-based analysis and history as a form of social critique, potentially driven by a pre-determined ideological agenda. The review argues that while Du Mez acknowledges historical complexity, her narrative arc leans heavily towards a preordained conclusion – the inevitable rise of Donald Trump as the culmination of evangelical cultural trends.
The review concludes by questioning the normativity of evangelical failures and the absence of a clear path forward in Du Mez’s analysis. It raises critical theological questions: Is evangelicalism inherently flawed? What constitutes true repentance and reconciliation? The lack of a gospel-centered response in Du Mez’s conclusion leaves the reader with a sense of hopelessness, a stark contrast to the Christian emphasis on redemption and restoration. The review poignantly points out that while reckoning is necessary, it must be coupled with hope and a pathway towards healing, rooted in Christian principles of love, forgiveness, and self-examination.
In expanding on this review, it’s crucial to further explore the symbol of John Wayne and his enduring appeal within certain segments of American evangelicalism. John Wayne‘s on-screen persona, often embodying rugged individualism, unwavering patriotism, and a strong, silent masculinity, resonated deeply with a cultural narrative that emphasized strength, order, and traditional values. For many evangelicals, particularly within conservative circles, John Wayne represented an ideal of Christian manhood – a protector, a provider, and a defender of faith and family against perceived threats. This image, however, often overshadowed more nuanced and biblically-centered models of masculinity, potentially contributing to the very issues Du Mez critiques, such as patriarchal structures and a militaristic worldview.
Further analysis could delve into specific examples from Du Mez’s book, unpacking how the “John Wayne” archetype manifested in various aspects of evangelical culture – from political engagement to gender roles within the church and family. Examining the rhetoric and imagery employed in evangelical media, leadership, and popular culture would reveal the pervasive influence of this masculine ideal and its impact on shaping evangelical identity and values. It’s also important to consider counter-narratives and dissenting voices within evangelicalism that challenged this dominant paradigm, offering alternative expressions of faith and masculinity.
Ultimately, Jesus and John Wayne serves as a powerful, albeit provocative, examination of a significant cultural and religious movement. While the original review rightly points out potential limitations in Du Mez’s methodology and conclusions, the book’s central thesis demands serious consideration. For those within and outside evangelicalism, engaging with Du Mez’s work, alongside other more nuanced historical analyses, is crucial for fostering self-reflection, promoting constructive dialogue, and charting a path towards a more authentic and Christ-centered expression of faith in contemporary America. The call for self-examination and a return to scriptural authority, as emphasized in the original review, remains a vital takeaway for anyone seeking to understand and navigate the complex intersection of faith, culture, and figures like John Wayne in the American evangelical landscape.
