Theology in the Raw - S9 Ep939: Jesus and John Wayne: Dr. Kristin Kobes Du Mez

Episode Date: January 20, 2022

Kristin Kobes Du Mez is a New York Times bestselling author and Professor of History and Gender Studies at Calvin University. She holds a PhD from the University of Notre Dame and her research focuses on the intersection of gender, religion, and politics. She has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC News, Religion News Service, and Christianity Today, and has been interviewed on NPR, CBS, and the BBC, among other outlets.  Her most recent book, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation, has swatted a hornets nest and sparked all kinds of interesting and much needed conversations. In this episode, I talk to Kristin about her book and the responses it has elicited. Theology in the Raw Conference - Exiles in Babylon At the Theology in the Raw conference, we will be challenged to think like exiles about race, sexuality, gender, critical race theory, hell, transgender identities, climate change, creation care, American politics, and what it means to love your democratic or republican neighbor as yourself. Different views will be presented. No question is off limits. No political party will be praised. Everyone will be challenged to think. And Jesus will be upheld as supreme. Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Youtube | Preston Sprinkle Check out Dr. Sprinkle’s website prestonsprinkle.com Stay Up to Date with the Podcast Twitter | @RawTheology Instagram | @TheologyintheRaw If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

Hey friends, welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. This is the long-awaited episode that I know a lot of you were wanting to hear. Kristen Kobus-Dumé is a New York Times bestselling author and a professor of history and gender studies at Calvin University. She has a PhD from the University of Notre Dame, and her research focuses on the intersection of gender, religion, and politics. She's written for many different outlets, the New York Times, Washington Post, NBC Religion, Fox News, just kidding, religion. All right. So she, I'll stop. She's the author of Jesus and John Wayne, subtitle is How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. It's a book that I read shortly after it came out because everybody was talking about it. Want to know what I thought about it. I read it cover to cover. And what do I think about it?

Well, we talk about what I think about it on this podcast. So you can see, I mean, yeah, I really enjoyed reading the book. Have some questions like I'm sure a lot of you have. Me and Kristen talk about those questions. I found her to be a delight of a conversational partner, a true Christian academic. In other words, she wants to mix it up. She's a searcher of truth. She welcomes helpful feedback. And I just found her to be super humble and delightful and wise, and I learned a ton in this episode. If you would like to register and attend the Theology in

the Raw conference, space is filling up. I know I keep saying that, but yeah, it's filling up. So we got a few hundred spaces left, and it will probably sell out, I would say, by mid-February is when we anticipate the conference to be sold out. So Exiles in Babylon, The Theology of Neuron, Exiles in Babylon Conference, March 31st to April 2nd. Come listen to Jackie Hill Perry, John Tyson, David Platt, Derwin Gray, Thabiti Anubuale, Kimi Katiti, Sandy Richter, worship by, you'll hear worship from, you'll participate in worship by Ivan Wickham, Tanika, Wyatt, and there's going to be Street Hymns,

Ellie Bonilla, many, many other speakers. You can register on my website, PrestonSpringgold.com. All the info's in the show notes. Okay, let's dive into this really interesting conversation with the one and only Kristen Kobus-Dumé. All right, friends, I'm here with Kristen Kobus-Dumé.

Kristen, thanks so much for being on Theology Raw. I'm so excited about this, and I know a lot of my listeners are going to be, or are, as you're listening right now, really excited about it, too. Oh, thanks for having me. So let's just dive into your book, Jesus and John Wayne. I mean, I, like probably most people listening, I just, everywhere I turn, people were asking me, have you read this book? Have you read this book?

Have you read this book? And I'm like, no, but I love the title. And so I read the whole thing cover to cover, took tons of notes. And first of all, thank you so much for all the work you put into it. Thank you for doing such a high quality academic book written in such a witty engaging way like i hope

even you i hope your critics will even should say like okay i got lots of issues here but thank you for writing an engaging but i would rather read an engaging book that i have problems with than a boring book that i you know um can might agree with whatever. So, and I mean, just, I don't know how much, you know, but I'm in an overwhelming agreement with so much you said here. I had my own kind of awakening with a lot of stuff you're talking about years ago. So, um, yeah, definitely a lot of resonance here. Um, tell us the backstory, what, what led you to write this book? And, uh, we can go from there. Yeah, I actually started looking into this subject, evangelical masculinity, back in around 2005 or 2006. So a long time ago. And it was simply because my students brought it to my attention.

I teach at Calvin University, and I had been teaching a course. I was a new prof teaching a class in American history, and I lectured on Teddy Roosevelt because I wanted to show them how gender worked in history, how masculinity worked, how it changed over time, how it was linked to all kinds of other things like economics and foreign policy and religion and race. And so I lectured on Teddy Roosevelt, and then right after class, a couple guys came up to me and said, Professor Dume, there's this book you have to read. And they pointed me to John Eldridge's Wild at Heart. And so I took their advice. I went down to Family Christian Bookstore, bought myself a copy, and I opened it up. And there's a quote from Teddy Roosevelt right up

front. And I was really startled to see how this Christian writer was writing about Christian masculinity in a way that was just deeply militaristic and building on somebody like Teddy Roosevelt. And when I read the book, I was surprised by how little theology was actually there for a vision of Christian masculinity. And it was, you know, he's drawing on Hollywood heroes instead, William Wallace and such. And so I thought this is really interesting. And I started looking more into it. And I was actually deeply disturbed by this is the early 2000s, right? This is the Driscoll years, the height, this is, you know, this, this macho militant masculinity on

steroids. And at a certain point, I researched it for like a year and a half, and then I set the whole project aside because it seemed too depressing. And I was really struggling with, is this fringe or is this mainstream? And if it's fringe, is it responsible for me as a Christian to be shining this bright light on what might well be the darkest underbelly of American Christianity? So I set it aside. And it wasn't until the fall of 2016, in the days after the Exodus Hollywood tape release, when I realized that the language I was hearing in support for Donald Trump from white evangelicals, even in the face of sexual assault, reminded me so much of what I read earlier. And so I dusted off that old research and decided,

I think I have something to say here. And that maybe evangelical support for this whole kind of militant turn isn't a betrayal of their values. There's something deep within their own history that draws them to it. So that's the long backstory. That's what I appreciate. Like you dug so deep into kind of the why. Like what's the thing beneath the thing beneath the thing that's kind of driving this? One thing just to acknowledge it.

Some people acknowledge it and celebrate it. Other people are like, yeah, I'm not so sure we should be married to the political right and militarism and all these things. But you dug so deep into, I mean, things that like, I've got quotes in some of my books with, one of them was like close to something you said. I'm like, oh yeah, I read that. But you went way deeper and just saw, like just unearthed so much stuff. Was it a lot of like new research for you or is this something that you had to do? Or yeah, so was it new research

for the book or a lot of stuff you've already known for a while? Yeah. You know, I think sometimes people in evangelical circles kind of think this is all my experience because, you know, evangelicals tend to write a lot of memoir, tend to write based on experience. I need to say that the vast majority of what I write about in Jesus and John Wayne is not my personal experience. I researched this book, right? I didn't even know about some of these figures. Some of them I did. I, you know, kind of one foot in, one foot out. I had a sense of the lay of the land. You know, I teach evangelical students, but, you know, no, this is a work of research. And so I, and I have to give a huge shout out to my research assistants. I had three, uh, Calvin, uh, undergrads who worked with me for two, two and a half years. And a couple of them came from deep inside, uh, different parts of the subculture and, uh, they were amazing. And so, you know, we, we did this, the research for

it was really a, a joint effort. That, that makes me feel a little better. it was really a joint effort. That makes me feel a little better. Because I'm looking at all this stuff you've combed through and digested. I'm like, every chapter, I mean, it's like a ton of work. So that's okay. I was like, you know,

It was a lot of work. I will say that. And you know, my original manuscript was 60,000 words over word count. Over word count? Yes, over. Oh my word.

So I had to cut huge swaths of this text. I had to cut so many additional examples, so much of the more backstory around different figures because it was ruthless. It took me four months to cut it down to even a size where I dared show it to my publisher first draft because I was like, I've said this in other podcast spaces, and I'm always like praying that my editor never listens because he doesn't know this. He has no idea how, how huge it was at first. And then he saw and it still had to be cut down and crafted considerably once it got into his hands. But no, there was just so much, so much to sift through. And it was a lot of work and it was really intense.

I mean, the home stretch, I was putting in 18-hour writing days to get it done. So it was intense. Well, I'm so, you know, you're dealing with obviously such, I have the book in front of me here for people who can't see it yet. There you are. I mean, it's just over 300 pages. You got, you know, several, I mean, how many dozens of pages of end notes here. You're dealing with sensitive stuff, right? I mean, you're dealing with a lot of stuff's controversial.

It's very sensitive. You're scratching at some wounds here. And so you have to, I would not have wanted this to be 150 pages with one page of end notes. And you're writing, but you have that have that good balance of like, it's very academically thorough and yet you're writing in a very fluid way. I mean, something that I, I, I'm always trying to hit that. Like, can I talk in a normal way, but have be responsible in my research and not be just, you know, heavy handing or, you know, reading things with a heavy hand or just not doing thorough, thorough research. So I'm curious. Well, how about this? For those who maybe haven't read the book and I've talked to people that say

they feel like they, they feel like they've read it cause they've heard so much about it, but they haven't actually read it. So for that person who might say, I kind of know, I think I know what she's going to say here. Give us the two minute maybe overview of Jesus and John Wayne. Yeah. So essentially it's a history of white evangelical masculinity and militarism as they're intertwined over the last half century or more of American history. And so it situates evangelicalism in its broader historical and cultural context. It does take theology seriously, but it also interrogates that

theology in terms of cultural influences. And it really explains, and it does so through examining popular culture, right? I think that's something that's different about this, but compared to a lot of previous histories of evangelicalism, I'm a cultural historian, and I'm looking at these, you know, bestsellers. I'm interested in what's going on in evangelical seminaries. I'm interested in what, you know, some of the leaders are saying, but I'm also very interested in evangelical fiction. You know, these books are selling millions of copies that, frankly, other scholars of evangelicalism are either oblivious to or just kind of roll their eyes at. And so what I'm saying here is that real evangelicalism are either oblivious to or just kind of roll their eyes at. And so what I'm saying here is that real evangelicalism is not defined predominantly through its theology. It is a cultural movement.

Theology is just a part of it. And so we have to understand that. And it's about power. It's about race. It's about gender. And this is the faith that it's not like there's some pure evangelicalism that gets kind of muddied every once in a while. We just have to reclaim that pure evangelicalism. I'm suggesting that the faith that is handed down, that is preached from many pulpits, that is studied in these book groups and these Bible studies, it is a faith that is intertwined with white identity, with these hierarchies of power, and that this is the evangelicalism. It is deeply political.

And it is the evangelicalism that helps us explain all the survey data that we have coming at us in the last few years, not just about evangelical support for Trump, but white evangelical views on things like law enforcement, Black Lives Matter, and immigration, and a whole host of issues that traditional histories of evangelicalism just can't explain. So you're dealing more with the pop culture, not just dealing with it, but you're saying that that is more fundamental. It's not like evangelicals are getting their views from like reading the latest commentary put out by the scholar who wrote it, you know, that might play a role, but you're saying the pop culture influence is way more, well, is way more influential. Yeah. So I look at evangelicalism as a consumer culture, right? So did you shop at a Christian

bookstore? Do you, you know, now are you listening to evangelical podcasts? But before it was, you know, are you reading books published by Christian publishers? You know, there's this whole subculture that those who are on the inside know intimately well. It's almost completely invisible to those on the outside, right? Like my editor never heard of any of this stuff. And he was questioning some of my publication numbers when I was writing about these books. He's like, yeah, this is inflated. He's like, where did you get this source? I was like, oh, it's in the New York Times.

Like, okay, then it's legit, right? It's just completely kind of separate. And those who are on the inside know it so well, right? It formed many of us. And so I see evangelicalism as a consumer culture culture but also as a series of networks and alliances and that's part of what this book tries to do too is show how so many of these individuals were connected through organizations you know conferences platforming one another blurbing each other's books and that creates the kind of system and they that system then, which is linked to the consumer culture, is able to define who is in

and who is out and what determines that. And those lines are often drawn around issues of sexuality and gender. Race absolutely comes to play, whereas other theological issues are kind of up for grabs. That's interesting. I was probably most disturbed with, I don't know, that like late seventies, early eighties. And I don't, you know, I, I don't want to quote a name unless I can really back up what I'm going to say about them. And I can't, I'll let you do that. But like, there's just a few very, very powerful people in evangelicalism and they're so deep into specifically the political right and it's a power it was a power that's what i did i knew it was there and because that wasn't i guess it was kind of my culture but i didn't know it like i didn't pay attention to it i

absorbed some of it but not not as much as some people but looking, like that was a, when I say power, I mean like power, like, like tons of money, tons, tons of influence and just powerful personalities. Like they're not surrounding themselves with people that will challenge their thinking. It's very much. He's like what I would describe that. And maybe I'm totally inaccurate here, but like very, a bunch of very unhealthy Enneagram 8s. Right, you know, we can name names, right? We're talking people like Jerry Falwell Sr., who I know like in certain circles, he looks pretty good compared to his son.

But now you go back in time and you look at this, you know, how kind of the faith that he created and promoted through his radio, through his media empire, how the, you know, the walls that he built, the people that he created and promoted through his radio, through his media empire, how the, you know, the walls that he built, the people that he demonized. We can talk about Tim LaHaye, right? Incredibly powerful. Most evangelicals, A, isn't he the guy who wrote Left Behind? Yes. And, you know, sold millions of copies. He was also instrumental in building essentially the

architecture of the Christian right, founded the Council for National Policy, talk about power and influence, not just in the early 80s, but up to today. And, right, these are these networks that, you know, incredible amount of money changing hands, political power being wielded. And yet, you know, evangelicals have often kind of told themselves a very sanitized version of their own history. You know, theirs is a history that is, you know, yeah, there are some unfortunate things that happened here or there. But really, this is a story of good-hearted people who just want to serve the Lord, and they are spreading the good news of the gospel. And this is who we are. the good news of the gospel, and this is who we are. And, you know, that certainly characterizes some members of this community, but by no means does it characterize the whole of the story. And

so that's, I think, one of the interventions that Jesus and John Wayne makes is it says, you know, that's just part of the story, and there's a lot more going on here. Yeah. Would you say you were raised, like, is this your background, your environment? going on here. Would you say you were raised, like, is this your background, your environment? So I'm right on the edges of it. I sure wish I had a really quick and snappy answer to this question because I get it asked all the time. So I'm from the Christian Reformed denomination, which may mean nothing to you. I grew up in a very ethnic subculture in Northwest Iowa, Dutch Reformed. My mom is an immigrant from the Netherlands. My dad is an ordained minister in the Christian Reformed Church. He's a theology professor. So I grew up with a very separate identity. I was not

evangelical. I've never identified personally as an evangelical. We defined ourselves over against American evangelicals. Like we Reformed people are much smarter, right? So, so no, that said, I was immersed in the evangelical popular culture because I was taught that, you know, listening to secular music, top 40 was sinful. So I listened to CCM. I, you know, our only bookstore in my small town was a Christian bookstore. And so those are the books that were available. That was my kind of cultural world. So even though theologically I wasn't formed by evangelical theology and I didn't self-identify, looking back, I was absolutely shaped by the popular culture. Now, I will say I'm a little bit older, too. So I didn't get the full brunt of the whole

purity culture that came in the 90s. I was kind of like moving out of those spaces by that time. But I certainly had kind of one foot in that world. Okay. I've been to your small hometown just last year. You're at Dort. Were you your first Monday speaker? I was. I spoke at Dort. Were you your first Monday speaker? I was, I spoke at Dort. I don't know what they called me. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's my hometown. I grew up just a few blocks from the college. That's why I don't remember saying that in the book. I'm like,

and I think I read it right after I was just there. So I'm like, no way. I probably know the street you were reading. That's where I come from. And I spoke in, uh, Lamar's Iowa,

which is like an hour away. So, Oh yeah. 20 20 minutes it's the ice cream capital of the world so what i'll say is um what and i i talk about this in the intro too is that you know i come from this distinctive confessional tradition ethnic denomination but when I grew up, so 30 years ago, we still had much more of a distinctive identity. Now I would say a pretty big swath of the Christian Reformed Church is de facto evangelical. So our pastors now are not necessarily reading Kuyper and Bovink and Doyward. They're reading John Piper and they're going to the Gospel Coalition. I'm curious, how do you define evangelical? I know I could ask 10 people that and get 11 different answers, but.

Yeah. Yeah. When you say you were raised, I mean, you authority of scripture and sound theology, conservative values, but you would still say you're not an evangelical. So yeah. What, what is evangelical? Yeah.

I mean, there's different ways to define it. And I, I'm always clear because if you define it organizationally, technically, I'm a member of the Christian Reformed Church, right? A local congregation just down the road here. And it is a member of the National Association of Evangelicals. So right there, you could say I'm an evangelical. Um, because I define evangelicalism more in terms of identity and, uh, you know, participation in this consumer culture. That's where it's not a super accurate definition. And then theologically, the kind of traditional theological definition of evangelical is authority of the scriptures, crucicentrism or the centrality of the cross, conversionism, this born-again experience, then activism. Look at any one of those. I mean, particularly this born-again experience, that really was not a part of my Reformed tradition,

right? We were much more God's sovereignty and not making a choice. Very much upholding the authority of the scriptures, but not in a narrow and errantist way. We have a different scriptural tradition, right? And so, crucicentrism, absolutely, but also a real emphasis on kind of redemption, consummation, and, you know, kind of future shalom. And so even there, theologically, like, yes-ish, but not a perfect fit. That's really this, I mean, I know this is kind of an ongoing conversation, but I think it's helpful. i don't yeah when i hear people describe evangelicalism it's so hard to separate it from the cult the very culture you're describing like it's so even if the word itself doesn't mean that or even if every evangelical doesn't mean it if

they say i am an evangelical they're not trying to say and therefore i rubber stamp all the stuff about this culture i might be a part of but it it's just, it's hard to untangle that. That's where I go back and forth on whether it's even a helpful term. I mean, like if people ask me, are you an evangelical? It's my next question. What do you mean? Do you define that term? And I'll let you know if that resonates with me at all, you know?

Yeah. We need a better term. I mean, maybe Christian. Well, you know, that's something I will push back sometimes where people are, you know, oh, we need to redeem this term. I have pushed back against evangelical leaders or other scholars who want to say that, you know, a lot of the bad stuff that's happening within quote-unquote evangelicalism, those aren't real evangelicals, right?

Do they go to church every Sunday? Do they go to Wednesday night Bible studies? Do they? Nope, nope. We'll see. Then they're not real evangelicals, right? And I'm like, okay, okay. If you want to define evangelicalism in very narrow ways, you go do that and you make clear that that's what you're doing. But you have to concede that that's not how many people are defining the term when

they choose to self-identify as evangelical. And as a historian, I'm very comfortable with seeing how what people mean by evangelical changes dramatically over time. I mean, I've written on this. I've done linguistic studies, you know, tracing it over the centuries and seeing how the term itself, its meaning changes over time. And we have to acknowledge that particularly in the last 40, 50 years, and especially even in the last five years, what people mean by that term is shifting. And so now people who identify with that term are identifying with the shifting definition. And that's why it's important to realize that, and I write about this in the book, that a whole lot of Black Protestants, the majority of Black Protestants in this country

could check off those theological boxes and count as evangelical. But the vast majority of Black Protestants who can check off all those boxes do not identify as evangelical at all, because it is very clear to them that there is a whole lot more to evangelicalism than just checking off these little boxes. I've noticed the exact same thing with Black pastors. Yeah, they, yeah. Right? Yeah.

Right. So I'm a cultural historian. So I'm going to pay attention to what do people mean and why are they unable to check those boxes? So what is the evangelicalism that they cannot identify with? And then we have recent surveys that talk about how, you know, we have like one or two percent of people who since the last election no longer identify as evangelical. I think we have six% more who are. And they are identifying with the cultural and political term and not with any theological term.

So even here, before our very eyes, we're seeing this term continue to morph. Interesting. I mean, the original term was really good, right? Wasn't it a description of a more moderate Christianity against kind of fundamentalism after the Scopes Monkey Trial really hunkered down into hardcore fundamentalism? And then isn't that the origin of it? Well, the origin came back a couple centuries earlier. Oh. Right, where you have evangelicalism essentially linked to revivalist Christianity.

Oh, okay. Right before that. Right, where you have evangelicalism essentially linked to revivalist Christianity. Oh, okay. Right before that. Even now in Europe, it retains kind of this older Protestant and then more of a kind of popular revivalist tradition. But then you're right. In the mid-century, the National Association of Evangelicals was formed, and they did so in part over against the more rigid fundamentalists, the more extreme fundamentalists. And that's when neo-evangelicalism was an alternative to this harsher, kind of almost, you know, much ridiculed extreme fundamentalism. However, as a story, I'll say we can't draw that distinction too sharply.

When you look at, say, what I write about Billy Graham and Jesus and John Wayne, he was the new evangelical. He was the evangelical avatar, celebrity, and fundamentals didn't like him. He was too ecumenical. He wasn't strict enough. He was all these things. So those are important differences, and they're legit. That said, there was a whole lot of overlap, theologically and culturally, between the fundamentalists and between somebody like Billy Graham. And so we can't separate those two, even though it was a rebranding and a very successful rebranding. There is a lot of overlap still between fundamentalists and neo-evangelicals. And that's one of the arguments of Jesus and John Wayne. In a sense, the fundamentalists continue to hold a whole lot of sway within evangelicalism inside the SBC and

across American culture. Would you, ah, so many questions. Would you say that today that the more conservative wing of evangelicalism has the greatest influence and power? Are those the same? Let's just say influence. of evangelicalism, this kind of far right or whatever, that that is a growing, powerful movement. I've been in this conversation with a buddy of mine. I keep saying, name me one seminary that would be kind of that really, and I guess maybe we

might come up with different names or whatever, but to me it seems like the most influential. But maybe I'm thinking theologically, like the people writing commentaries, the people writing commentaries the people who are like have popular podcasts or whatever actually that can go either way I don't know yeah so you you would say that the the more unhelpful kind of like Jerry Falwell-ish brand of evangelicalism is still very much powerful and alive today

yeah I love to hear you think through this, right? Because this is exactly, this is exactly like, these are the questions that we have to be wrestling with right now. What is evangelicalism? Where is the center of power? And honestly, as I was writing that in my book, this was the constant question, right? You know, 15 some years ago, I was like, no, this is fringe. You know, I don't have to write about this. I don't have to write about this. And what I realized is I think the center of evangelicalism is shifting and our awareness of where that center is, is shifting. And that's one of the real things that Jesus and John Wayne is doing now. But it's complicated, right? Because I think one way to address the questions that you're surfacing there is to think about what happens if you cross the right wing, right? So there are a lot of evangelicals who are not, you know,

these kind of conservative diehard folks who are, you know, writing the happy devotionals who are, you know, let's think about Beth Moore six, seven years ago, right? You'll feel Beth Moore. Right. And what happens, though, when an individual or an institution stands against the right wing, right, this right guard? Ask any administrator at any Christian college what happens. Right. They are acutely aware of alienating donors, of alienating, you know, constituents. And so this is the power dynamics that we have to see. So let's look at Russell Moore, another really great example. You know, six years ago, he would be like, this is the center

of evangelicalism, Russell Moore, right? And he's a super nice guy. Yeah, he's pretty conservative, right? And he's a super nice guy. Yeah, he's pretty conservative, but that's who evangelicals are. And he's out of a job now, and Beth Moore's out of the SBC, right? So those are the dynamics that we're looking at. So you don't know where those boundaries are until you bump up against them. And I think that's important to recognize in terms of the shifting power dynamics, that not everybody within evangelicals or look at, you know, CCM, look at, you know, Christian artists. And so many of them are not overtly political and many of them know it is not in their financial interest to be overtly political. If any of them would want to come out, die hard against Trump, I guarantee you that their sales would take a nosedive and probably Salem Radio isn't going to be playing them anymore, right? So this is how we should be understanding these dynamics.

Where is the center? That doesn't mean everybody holds these views, but it means that there will be a price to pay if you're a pastor, if you're running a Christian college, if you're trying to sell books at Lifeway Christian stores, if you're trying to get on the radio. And that's how we should kind of approach this question, I think. It's so hard to measure. Like I think if you give the example of like Russell Moore and Beth Moore, and I don't, Russell Moore and Beth Moore, like has their influence increased or decreased since they've kind of not toed the line? Or even people like a Lecrae or, you know, there's kind of this exodus of formerly reformed black, quote, former evangelicals who were all in the, you know, Gospel Coalition Piper until, in the words of several of my friends in that movement, until we got too black, you know, like, oh, you know.

Yeah. But I don't know. Like, I see them. And maybe it's just because I'm not in those kind of far right wing circles that I see them having that. Like, Russell Moore, I'm like, dude, this guy has an amazing influential platform. Not that he didn't before. Obviously, he did before.

But I'm like, I feel like so many people are like, yay, Russell Moore. So I don't know. It's impossible to measure, right? Like, has their social influence increased or decreased or has it just shifted to a different kind of audience? Maybe that's the – I think that's it, right? It's shifting. And so who is Russell Moore's audience now? And we could bring Christianity Today into this conversation too, right?

Because they inhabit this really interesting space and watching how they've been navigating this, you know, very cautious. Then all of a sudden, you know, Gali's going to write this scathing editorial and then quickly, but, you know, kind of like see this and then they're kind of a home base for people like Moore who gets kicked out of SBC and here, you know, landing pad here. And so, right, I don't know. Influence, yes. Platform, yes. But, you know, inside evangelicalism are those who are kind of on their way out. I mean, somebody brought this up on Twitter a couple of weeks ago in terms of my, like, platform, such as it is within evangelicalism, again, I don't identify as an evangelical, but they were comparing to somebody like David French.

Okay. And in the way that I was treated by critics in a way that is different than how David French was being treated, even though they really don't like what he's saying, he's still their brother in Christ, whereas I'm a wolf and, you know, off strolling with the devil. And they said, you know, you have a platform. It's not as big as David French's. It's also not as powerful, right? Because he has a ton of pastors who have institutional organizational power who look up to him. And you have a bunch of marginalized people. And I thought, you are right. It's not just numbers. It's people who have lost their pulpits, people who are leaving their churches, people who are feeling alienated. And so as a cultural historian who is attentive to power dynamics, that is really important to keep in mind. There's platform,

there's having a voice, and there's the, I think often, especially like this generation, we tend to underestimate the power of institutions and just how much money is propping up some of these institutions. And some of us can have a Twitter account and can do some fun stuff, and we can even write a book. And I went completely outside of Christian publishing to write my book. But that's not the same kind of power as what we see kind of entrenched within this subculture. That's really helpful. It is complicated and complex. Yeah, that's helpful.

Thank you for that. Who did you publish with? I didn't realize it's not a Christian publisher. Oh, no. It's a New York Tradehouse Live Right publishing. It's an imprint of Norton. Oh, yeah. Well done.

Gosh. Yeah. No, that was a very intentional choice. And people often mistakenly, evangelicals are so used to inhabiting their own subculture that they kind of assume that the books they read are written by evangelicals and for evangelicals. And I am certainly incredibly grateful that a whole lot of evangelicals are reading my book. But evangelicals are not the book's primary audience, right? I was writing beyond that audience. And so I think there sometimes is a little confusion in terms of, well, why didn't you tell us how to fix things?

And why didn't you do more theology here? Right? Not realizing that I'm writing as a professional historian with a secular trade publisher who's saying that this story is important, yes, for evangelicals, but it's also hugely important for all Americans. And in fact, it has some global implications too. That's really helpful. That actually answers a couple of my questions. Maybe some others that we're going to get to in a second. I heard that you were even, that Ben Shapiro went after you. Did you hear that? I doubt you listen to Ben Shapiro. Maybe you do, but like, I already mentioned your book. So that's it, because this is with an amazing publisher, you know, the book launched on NPR's Morning Edition, a nice interview with Stephen Skeap.

So it had this national audience right up front. The Christian audience kind of came around. It took a while. It took a few months for, I mean, you know, some people read it right away. The title, especially the subtitle, is not written in a way that is particularly, you know, attractive to many white evangelicals. It's not right to woo them. The intro is a little harsh too, right? And so I think it took a while for evangelicals, for some evangelicals to realize not only could they read this, but they could actually talk about it too. And it took some brave voices out there, including some conservative complementarian men who read this book and said,

hey guys, this is for us and we need to wrestle with this. And so I'm incredibly grateful. And so I started doing podcasts, right? Early on, I think I've done probably more podcasts than maybe any other author. I'd like to see somebody who's done more because, you know, early on I was invited by these people I'd never heard of, but they maybe had three or 400 listeners, conservative white evangelical pastors. And they said, let's talk.. I was like, absolutely, let's talk. And they were, with only one exception, incredibly curious, open, and hospitable, and have been huge supporters of this work. So yes, the Christian audience has come along, and it continues to—they are avid readers,

and they continue to pass it along by word of mouth. But it's always also had this pretty big national presence. And actually, it's been covered in international media in at least a half dozen countries featured as well. That's fantastic. Oh, man. I might go non-Christian after my next book. So I'm curious, what are some of the common critiques you've had? Maybe start with ones that you're like, you know what, that's a fair point. And maybe you might even, if you were to do a second edition, might tweak some things. What are some of the top, most helpful, I'll say, critiques that you receive from the book? Yeah, the best critique that I have encountered is one that I've heard very, very rarely, only once or twice. But it's, to my mind, as a historian, the most legitimate critique. and it is that I neglected the economic analysis here and class-based analysis. Oh, yeah.

Absolutely true. There is so much more to that story, and it would enhance the story I've told. I don't think it changes it, but it enriches it. The reason I didn't go there, and this is also, I'll just say my editor's primary critique of the book too, as I was writing it, he's like, Kristen, you need more, I can add Kristen. And each draft, like we had, my publisher actually moved up the publication date. I turned in my manuscript in April. I was supposed to have eight full months to do the edits. And then when my editor who had just come to the publisher, um, very recently, you know, got this project kind of thrown on his desk and he looked at, he said, um,

we need to move the publication date up. And so are you cool if we just give you four months to edit instead of eight? And so that was, it was incredibly condensed and the high pressure of that's when I was putting in those 18 hour days. But,hour days. But I knew, and I was still trying to, you know, cut down word count. I was still over on word count, and I had cut out huge sections and taken out so many examples. To get the economic analysis in, I couldn't figure out how to do it well, because there's actually a missing decade in this book. The book, the story really picks up, like you said, in the 1940s, neo-evangelicals. But then I had to look back a little bit 19th century, a little bit to fundamentalist modernist, you know, World War I,

Teddy Roosevelt, all that stuff is in there. The 30s are not in there. The 30s are when, like, you can really, that's when I would have needed to, you know, talk about conservative Protestants, anti-New Deal. You know, this anti-communism didn't just pop up in the Cold War era. You know, these roots were already, you know, kind of pro-business, free enterprise. That was there. And then you can bring in the social class analysis and prosperity gospel and weave those strands throughout the entire narrative. I was really afraid. Like you said, this is an engaging book. I worked really, really hard. I teach, you know, I teach 20-year-olds and I see that the most beautiful, intricately argued, you know, academic books are boring to them. And

they don't read it. And so I was like, I'm not going to make a boring book. I could not figure out how to start a book and then pull the readers in and take the time I needed to flesh out economic analysis that had to start in the 1930s. So these are the questions that I grappled with as an author and had to make some choices. I don't know if it was the right choice. And I hope to make up for that lack of economic analysis a whole lot in my next book. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't have enriched this one. So that's the best critique as far as I'm concerned as a historian.

Okay. I didn't think of that one. Whenever we talk about race, it does, and this is not my area, so I maybe actually didn't shut up here, but I don't know. So what is race and what is socioeconomic and the intertwining of that too?

And sometimes those are hard to unravel, especially when you deal with sensitive things. So that's, that's helpful. Let me, I've got a few questions of my own, then I'll go to Twitter. And these really are, I mean, some of these are questions, some are a little bit like, I don't think I agree with you here,

but I would love to hear your thoughts. Or just, yeah, I don't know, maybe more questions. Can you define patriarchy? That was one that I know that term is. So I'm a biblical studies guy. So when I hear patriarchy, I think of a historical description of a societal way of life that existed in biblical times and is actually prevalent in

many parts of the world today. But I know in America, as I'm learning, it's used just differently. So what do you, do you define it? I was looking for a definition. I didn't think I saw one, but. Yeah, no, I could offer a more precise definition. It's essentially, you know, men wielding authority over women and then it can take, oh, sorry. I just almost did it right there. And then it can take various forms, right? So it can be authority over women in the family sphere, in the religious sphere, in a broader society, just different ways in which male power is exercised over women, right? And then you can talk about Christian patriarchy,

and you can get into biblical teachings, you can get into male headship, but in Christian tradition too, you can have it in the religious sphere, and it looks different ways in, you know, different traditions. Some, it just affects ordination, you know, teaching, things like that. For some, it's, you know, authority in the home. And there's different ways of interpreting biblical passages. But also you can look at in the economic realm, in the social realm, in the political realm, right? So essentially all of the ways in which this male authority, or if you want to use a little bit harsher word, you know, male rule over women or domination over women and women subjecting themselves to masculine authority.

So that's what we're talking about in terms of patriarchy. But there is not one set, you know, even any definition of patriarchy that's kind of pretty general, pretty loose, because as a historian, it's always in the particulars. So what does it look like in this particular moment, in this particular culture, in this situation? How is that power exercised? How is it resisted? And to what effect? And so it's always in the particulars

that historians are most interested in. Okay. Would you say that all forms of complementarianism are intrinsically patriarchal? Like, do you see that whole... I would say that, yeah. I know that there's a debate, and I know that some complementarians are very proud of that, and yes, it's patriarchy, and so I'm like, no, it's not patriarchy, it's something else, right? But according to the definition that I, you know, have loosely given you, yes, I'm comfortable saying that complementarianism is a patriarchal system. Yes. Would you say it's, because when I hear patriarchy, it's usually used in a very negative way, not just a descriptive way. And it sounds like the way you're describing it is, like, would you see that complementarianism, even if it's in good faith and humbly practiced and whatever, um,

is in trend, like, it's just not right. Not just like, yeah, I don't agree with that, but I know there's good people in there that are all abusing women or whatever, but like, yeah, you know, so patriarchy is, uh, the term is often used in a negative way in part because feminists use that word a lot. Right. And so there's, you know, it's used as a term and often for the point of critiquing and calling out instances of patriarchy in terms of, you know, feminist scholarship and so on. So there's that discourse, if you will. But then if you look at, say, complementarianism, some complementarians are, you know, have worked hard to redeem the term patriarchy, right? Yes, this is patriarchy and we stand by it and we are redeeming this term because it is God

ordained masculine authority. And so we're going to stand by it. Um, now what I feel about complementarianism and what I feel about patriarchy ultimately is going to come down to a theological question, right? Helpfully, I wrote an entire first book about Christian feminism and kind of ways in which from within evangelical Christianity historically, long before second wave feminism, women and men had contested patriarchy and suggested that patriarchy ultimately was a distortion of God's will for humanity, a reflection of the fall, and a reflection of men's ongoing rebellion against God in attempting to usurp authority over women when women were responsible only to God, right? So there's some theological claims right there. And I spent 10 years studying them them and I've written about them. I find that interpretation compelling.

I also understand, and I find it particularly compelling, not just because of interpretations of all of the kind of really relevant Bible passages, going back to translations as well as theological interpretation, but also because of my understanding of some bigger gospel issues of who is Jesus, understanding that the kind of radical heart of the Christian gospel as I have understood it and have been drawn to it is that, you know, God becomes human, divests himself of power, offers himself as a sacrifice for the redemption of all things. And so there's a real challenge throughout the gospels, throughout the scriptures, actually, a challenge to kind of human concepts of power. And I'm a Calvinist, so I have a very robust view of sin

and sin linked to power. And so that also kind of frames my understanding. To get back to your question of complementarianism then, I know many complementarians who are lovely people. And so we, you know, are they abusive? No, unless you suggest that usurping power over any other person is at its heart, you know, abusive. And many argue that. But I also understand that there is a long historical tradition that, you know, changes over time, but still consistently comes back to interpreting the scriptures as saying that God's will for humanity is that men exercise authority over women in

particular spaces and in particular ways. And so, I can position myself in this broader history and say, this is the interpretation that makes more sense to me for a whole lot of reasons. But I also understand that there is an interpretive tradition that makes a whole lot of sense to you. And so let's talk about that. Let's go to the scriptures. Let's have those, right? I can do that. That's not what I do as a historian. For me as a historian, what's most important is just knowing that there are contested ways of approaching these questions within Christianity, within American evangelicalism. As soon as I know that, then the shape that this patriarchal belief takes, or even the existence of patriarchal commitments in evangelicalism demands some explanation, just as evangelical feminism

demands explanation. Like, why are these women saying this thing in this moment? What are they drawing on? How are they approaching the scriptures? I do that when I look at Christian feminism. I do the same when I look at Christian patriarchy. That's super helpful. Yeah, thank you for that. That makes a lot of sense there. You know know when people throw uh terms around to kind of capture such like complementarianism it's like okay they all have one thing in common really you know some kind of leadership in the church or in the home whatever but man there's so many different brands and species and some aspects of that that are insanely unhealthy and abusive and others that i think are much more beautiful even if you disagree with the theological underpinnings, it's like, oh, but this is coherent.

People are being mutually submissive. Like they're living out both Ephesians 521 and 522 maybe. So there's a complex dynamic there. So it's hard to – okay. So it's helpful to know that you're not necessarily using it as a kind of like a, you know, racism and patriarchy. And these things, some things are just intrinsically just morally horrific, no matter what your beliefs are. Other things have maybe a more complexity to it. I've got a lot more questions to get to this.

So let's just, I don't want to give you too long. So here's one that I had. It didn't come up a lot. too long. So here's one that I had. It didn't come up a lot. But in a few places, you kind of, it seemed that you seem to kind of critique evangelicals who are critiquing Islam. There's one book here by R.C. Sproul and Abdul Salib, The Dark Side of Islam. You didn't know, I mean, you didn't say that was wrong to write that book necessarily. But part of me is like, you didn't say that was wrong to write that book necessarily, but part of me is like, your book could almost be called the dark side of evangelicals,

like militarism and patriarchy and subjugation and women, all this stuff. I'm like, wow, shouldn't you be celebrating Christians who are doing to Islam, but you're doing to evangelicals. I mean, or am I,

I'm not an Islam scholar or anything. It just seems like, or you said, you know, white evangelicals are significantly more authoritarian than other religious groups i'm like i'm not a religious historian but is that true like oh yeah it's i'm just you know citing sociological surveys yeah so white evangelicalism is more authoritarian sorry so you would say that white evangelicals are more authoritarian than Islam?

Oh, so you have to look at, I don't know that that survey compared it to Islam. And then you'd have to look at American Muslims versus Muslims in different countries, right? I mean, we're looking at a vast, vast number of human beings if we're talking about Muslims. Sure. So you have to look at the survey data. But in America, white evangelicals were the religious demographic that scored highest according to these measures of authoritarianism across the board. So that's where the footnotes come in, right?

You can just look at the footnote. You can pull up the survey data and see where did I get that conclusion from, make sure that I interpreted the data correctly. and that's where it's from. But yeah, so I love the question of, I know better than these Islamophobic people that I implicitly or explicitly critique. One thing I will say is, very important, is what I am writing, is it true? One thing I will say is, you know, very important is what I am writing. Is it true? Right. Because the popular evangelical books on Islam then and now contain a wealth of falsehoods.

Okay. They are making stuff up. I mean, the case of, right, that's why I have almost a whole chapter on these fake ex-Muslim terrorists. They came to my university, to Calvin, like years ago. That's how I first learned of these guys, because one of my colleagues, who's an expert in Islamic history, went to hear them speak. He's like, this doesn't make any sense. And then he reached out to Jim Daly of Focus of the Family and found out they knew he was a fraud. Oh, wow.

And they were still promoting him. And these guys continue to be promoted in these circles, spreading absolute lies about Islam. That is the huge difference. So, I mean, you will have Muslim scholars who say critical things about authoritarian tendencies in certain branches of Islam. Absolutely. And their scholarship is important. tendencies in certain branches of Islam. Absolutely. And their scholarship is important. So is what I'm saying true? That's where I'll start. Most important. And again, I'll point you to the survey data. I'm not just like making stuff up or I feel this way about them. We have a wealth of survey data that, and then just, you know, archival and documentary history. that. And then just, you know, archival and, you know, documentary history. That said, there's another layer to your question, which is, couldn't I be a little nicer? Right? Couldn't I just be a

little bit more positive? And I know on Twitter, a lot of the questions were like, could you, you know, wasn't there anything good about Elizabeth Elliot? I get a lot about James Dobson. Come on, you know, John Aldridge. These guys, these are good guys, right? Good guys. And this is where I'll, you know, first say that I did not write a history of evangelicalism. I am writing a history of white evangelical masculinity as it's intertwined with militarism over the last half century of America. So Elizabeth Elliot is relevant to that story in specific ways. This is not the whole of who she was. Many other books have been written about her. She's written a lot of books, right, that people have read.

And there's a lot more to evangelicalism than this strand that I am pulling through. There's more to James Dobson than what I, you know, I try to, since he's so important, I try to give a pretty full picture of who he is, who he appeals to, where he's coming from. He gets more of a biographical, you know, section. But there too, he is relevant to my story for these reasons. And that's the part that I highlight. This is how historians work. It's a thesis-driven enterprise, and this is what we do. Now, the question is, do I skew my story because I'm ignoring evidence that would undermine my thesis? You know, so far, I will say in academic circles,

this book is holding up extremely well. When people go check my documents, they're like, yeah, you took this in context appropriately. And not only that, there is a whole lot more there that you could have used. Right. And you're you know, there's just a whole lot more there. So, you know, those are questions. And then is it is it not nice? I didn't I didn't. You can respond to that if you want. I like a little spicier writing and I didn't think you were not nice. I thought you were calling out stuff that, is it you being not nice or are you just revealing not niceness?

You know, I didn't have that critique at all. But what I, so what I will say, and I had the opportunity to write a piece in the New York Times actually last spring. I was asked to write about belief in history and I thought, oh, I knew exactly what I wanted to write. And it was about the disruption that Jesus and John Wayne has caused in evangelical spaces precisely because evangelicals within their subculture, right, with all their Christian publishers, had controlled their narrative for so long, had excluded the darker side. And so for a whole, like for generations, actually, they've told a bright and rosy story about who evangelicals are, salt of the earth people, lovely people, you know, doing God's will. And so when I come in with the darker side,

it seems shocking. But let me say that a lot of the stuff that is shocking to evangelicals in this book is mundane to other historians billy graham i am none of this is new it's all in histories i've been written that evangelicals just didn't bother reading yeah yeah no i so this is a so a genuine question i because i've i've wrestled with this like because i i that's the answer i was hoping you would give and thinking to give give, like saying, hey, okay, I didn't cover everything. But here was what I set out to do. And I stuck to that mission. Is it just inevitable that in doing so, which I think has a tremendous amount of journalistic honesty, like I'm staying in this lane. This is what I'm doing.

And I've already said that up front. I've marked out my territory. I'm going to do that to the best of my ability the inevitable byproduct is you you do not you but just anybody who does that i've done this you create a narrative that could give that kind of impression now yours i don't i don't have that problem with your book because like you said there's been so much whitewashing. We need probably a few more of these. You can, you know, like, and that still would maybe tilt the balance a little bit, you know, towards a more healthy, you know, whatever. I think so.

And the thing is we need, my book does not negate the other histories that are out there. My book comes alongside. And so the task then is for us to say, how do these fit together? How do these good, lovely narratives also interact with this darker side? Because that's the way this works. That is the way this works. That is the way this works. And so I also imagine that the way that history works and kind of historiography is I have moved the conversation over here in terms of scholarly approaches to evangelicalism. The next thing that's going to happen is somebody is going to push back against it and move it over here. It's not going to go

all the way back here, right? But it's going to go, and that is exactly as it should be, right? I'm looking forward to the first books that are going to start doing that and saying, yes, but, right? And then look at different angles. And they're already, you know, really good books that are not all like, especially in academic circles that are not evangelicals good, evangelicals bad, but there are not books that have done a sufficient job, I think it's fair to say, not many, to help us understand the authoritarian impulses within evangelicalism, to help us understand the last five years. Because this whole narrative of they're holding their noses, that just cannot be sustained anymore. And the idea that they're betraying their values, there's only so long you can betray values until we have to start asking, uh,

maybe we got those values wrong. Yeah. That's good. That's good. Here's another one. I guess you might have partially answered it. Now, the other thing that I,

um, well, the, just calling it, not just evangelicalism, American evangelicalism, um, conservative American evangelicalism, but white evangelicalism.

Now you've made it very clear. I mean the stats are clear that the overwhelming majority of people in the brand of evangelicalism you're critiquing are white. But there were times when – do white men have the corner market on unhelpful masculinity? No, no, not at all. I just can't write those other books. No. Do white men have the corner market on unhelpful masculinity? No, no, not at all. I just can't write those other books. No. Okay.

I mean, that's what people are saying to you. Like, oh, it's just, you know, white evangelical men who are horrible. I'm like, oh, come on. Just read a little feminist scholarship. You can find horrible men all over the world. Right? You know, I just, I don't have expertise over there. Or, you know, the people are like, well, you know, when are you going to write a book on harvey weinstein in hollywood i was like you know i i don't do that kind of history like it's not that i'm just writing scathing books

about bad people that's not my genre right you know i i'm i'm actually a historian of religion gender and politics and um and there too like what's curious, it just, it dawned on me recently when I was seeing some of these critiques of why can't you say anything nice about evangelicals, right? And first of all, like there are some really powerful like evangelicals in Jesus and John Wayne who are in the minority, right? You know, so we can talk about Jimmy Carter. We can talk about, you know, these these voices of resistance that that just gets squashed. But also, like I said, my whole first book is on evangelical feminists in the early 20th century. I tend to think they're pretty remarkable people. the very people, you know, conservative, complementarian, white evangelical leaders who are deeply offended at how negative I am about evangelicalism are not out there championing that

book, which is actually holding up a social justice tradition within early 20th century, late 19th century evangelicalism, right? And so there too, it's like, who gets to define what stories get told, what stories get celebrated? And, you know, historians, we just move around and we write the stories that we think need to be told. And that's just the inevitable complexity of being a historian. You're going to tell this story. But how can we tell that story? Because I didn't.

That's not the story I'm telling. I'll try to get to it. But again, that does inevitably build a particular narrative. This is something that all historians know. There is no unbiased history. There is no just raw, like, just, I don't know, like, here's all the facts that occurred in history. Like, any time you take your hand at doing history, you're building a particular point of view, including biblical history. This is what I used to tell my Old Testament students.

You're going to get a very, very biased understanding of the world. I happen to think as a Christian it's a good slant. Well, not even good. I mean, most of the Old Testament is very negative on God's people. I mean, you talk about criticism. I mean, there was no single good king in the Northern Kingdom. But it is a point of view. But history is always, that's always history, right? It always has a point of view. Absolutely. You know, I teach history every day, and I'm always doing this with my students. You know, when they find a text really compelling,

I'm always asking, okay, what evidence are they using? Does it hold up? What perspectives are they bringing? What theoretical framing are they bringing? Do you trust them? And then the all-important question is, and the hardest one, is what is not here? Because when you read a history book, you're like, this is it. This is the story. But it's not. It was pieced together.

So, you know, you just heard me talk about earlier about the things that didn't make it into this book. And there's this huge long list of things that didn't make it in. Some of them, it was a question of, can my readers stay with me? Some, it was word count. Some, it was, I had initially proposed an entire chapter on alternate models of evangelical masculinity that weren't this militant one that existed alongside. And that got nixed at the proposal stage because I was told, Kristen, you have a thread, you pull it through. That'd be great for an academic book, maybe for a Christian publisher. That's not what this book is. And they were right, right? But every book, whether it's very clearly thesis-driven like Jesus and John Wayne or one that seems or

presents itself as super objective, every author has made exactly the same number of those choices. What goes in, what stays out, and how do we string together these bits of evidence into a coherent story? Okay. Yeah. That's helpful. That's helpful. Yeah. Because as some of my, my wife's an MK, we do, we're always, we travel a lot around the world and stuff and it's like there's so many lines here where you had like for conservative white evangelicals the good news of the christian gospel has become inextricably linked to staunch commitment to patriarchal authority gender difference christian nationalism i'm like i've been to so many countries where nobody's white and that would equally oh yeah yeah you know sometimes, you know, sometimes I'm in trouble.

They need their own books, right? And that's what's so interesting. Like, you know, Jesus and John Wayne has gone global. And I've heard from so many Christians globally saying, oh, we need to talk. We need to talk. And sometimes it's, you know, homegrown versions. And often, though, it is the export of this Jesus and John Wayne Christianity that then gets received in local, often patriarchal or even tribal contexts and something, white, evangelicals, Americans in this decade. Got it.

And at a certain point, you have to sometimes just use the word evangelical because otherwise it's, you know, word count. I do have one more, but I think you probably already answered it. It's basically like you could almost write. Well, and this is because you weren't trying to give a therefore. It's not a Christian book. It's a historical book written by somebody who happens to be a Christian, but you weren't getting a, here's five ways to fix the church in the end.

If you did do that, that's what I would say. Hey, the answer isn't to now marry the political left. The answer is to let's give our allegiance to Jesus kingdom, which is contrary to the ways of ruling the world. At least that's what I would say. But there are a few, let me, so how much time do you have?

I want to respect your time. We're coming up on an hour here. Do you have a few more minutes? Yeah, I've got another like 10, 15 minutes tops and then I have another call. I will keep you less than 10 for sure. So I just want to make sure I got some, there's a lot of good questions on Twitter. You've already addressed this, you know, painting an art, I think picture of people like Elizabeth on Twitter you've already addressed this you know painting an all or nothing picture of people like Elizabeth

Ellie you've already answered that bought the book haven't read it yet sorry bud not going to answer the question there's too many here that haven't read it have anybody this keeps coming up like do you think promise keepers or Piper have contributed anything positive to the faith you've already said?

Oh, yeah, yeah. So here, let me just quick take another stab at that too. Like, this is not a kind of, it's not either or, certainly. And it's not buffering, you know, if you say this number of negative things, you have to say this number of positive things. That's not how this works because ultimately this isn't to figure out a ledger, good or bad. It's striking that many evangelicals are approaching it this way, like give us something good here, right? It is to figure out how this all works. And so, you know, just because we can, first of all, are we even going to agree on what's good? Like I said, you know, I tend to think some of this evangelical feminism from earlier in the century was really good.

And some of these very guys who want me to write more good stuff about evangelicals would say that's bad, right? In fact, they don't even talk about it. They pretend like it doesn't even exist. So what's good and what's bad? I don't know. But if you take, you know, John Piper and, you know, maybe I read a couple of pages of his view of Christ. I'm like, absolutely. That is the Jesus I believe in. Is that a good thing? When he also then links that teaching about Jesus to teaching that is demeaning to women, that creates cultures of abuse, systems of abuse.

You see what happens is the good stuff becomes poison because it ends up essentially promoting and protecting and covering up for the bad stuff, which doesn't mean we didn't talk about the good stuff. But again, this isn't a ledger. Promise Keepers, same thing, right? A lot of those guys went there absolutely intending to serve God. A lot of the leaders were in it for that. Now, there's also a lot of money being made. There's a lot of book deals happening. were in it for that. Now, there's also a lot of money being made. There's a lot of book deals happening. I sell books. Nothing wrong with selling books. But you just have to start looking, how does this system work? What is actually happening here? And what were the limits to this racial reconciliation movement? There were some real limits. There was some real pushback.

There were some real limits. There was some real pushback. And the best way that we can answer some of these questions is to bring in other voices. So it's African Americans who can give a much needed perspective on race in evangelicalism or in the promise keepers movement. And maybe it's not just up to the white evangelical guys who feel super cool going to a promise keepers rally and the leaders who are amassing enormous power in, you know, being on the platforms there to offer the final assessment of what was actually going on there, right? It's part of the story. There can be true believers, but again, come on, I'm a Calvinist here. What else is happening? And what are the effects on people who are not there? And what are the effects on people who are there? And what does it mean when your highest spiritual experience is in a space where women are intentionally excluded. You know, what does that do for young boys being taught that this is where, you know, religious faith is strengthened? Good things can happen, but there's a lot that comes along with it as well that could have some

negative implications, particularly for people who are not invited into the room. That's, that's a good, that's a good analysis. That's great. And specifically, and this is what I loved about your book, is creating, and again, because you weren't preaching, but I hope the inevitable byproduct will be more cross-ethnic conversations, less white people in power in these areas and then non-white people in power in these areas, like more cross-pollination and ethnic reconciliation. So I don't know if that's a hidden and hopeful byproduct of telling a neutral history. Yeah, for those conversations to happen, it's really important for white evangelicals to realize that they are white evangelicals, right? That their

faith is not just biblical, right? That we are all approaching the scriptures with our cultural, racial, right? Socioeconomic, all these lenses. And many people who are not at the centers of power know that full well, right? You know, Black Protestants know that they are Black Protestants. White evangelicals usually don't call themselves white evangelicals. They call themselves Christians. We're Christians and we're biblical. You see how this works, right? And so it's super disruptive to say, actually, you know, I've been accused multiple times of being a racist against white people because I used the adjective white in my subtitle. Because, no, we're not.

We are just Christians. Now, as a historian, no, no, no, no. That is your belief. But let's talk about, honestly, to use a catch word, the privilege involved in just seeing yourself as generic, standard-setting Christian. Right. Yeah. And I didn't have that critique. I didn't at all think that. No, I'm not blasting you. You just get me talking. I have ideas. No, I've had Willie James Jennings on to talk about- There you go.

And lots of people to talk about whiteness and what that means and what it doesn't mean and ensure people use these racial categories in ways that might not be helpful. But any, I mean, just apply it generally, any dominant racial group in any society is going to be less self-aware of, typically, of how their race plays in society. Exactly. You know, I go to, I do a lot of work in i've got a lot of friends in nepal and it's technically doesn't have the caste system anymore but it very much does you know and we work with a lot of um lower caste uh people and they're they're very aware that you know i've got a friend who his parents are lepers.

And this kid speaks better English than most people in Nepal, has a college degree, super smart. And he's like, I'll never get a job. Like, I don't, you know, like there's a stigma that, you know, this guy's more qualified than most people in the country, you know, to do whatever. Like, this guy's brilliant, you know. So he's very aware of what any kind of power dynamic has, you know? So yeah, no, I, I, I just,

I, yeah, it's, it's more like is, is mass, is the unhealthy masculinity intrinsic to whiteness or is this a, is this a male problem, human problem, or is it really unique to whiteness? That's where I was like, I don't think it's unique to whiteness, even though it manifests itself. But you're saying, you weren't saying it was, you're just saying I'm dealing with this. No, not unique, but I just say, yeah, it manifests itself in particular ways that are distinct, even though absolutely not unique. So, in fact, I've heard from a number of black pastors and African-American women who say,

we need to do our own self-critique along these lines, right? It's their similarities, their differences, but we need to do this. And again, that is another book. And we could talk also about these patterns, these dynamics in Hispanic spaces as well. And I did some research into that and realized it was so vast. I made just a couple of kind of nods in that direction, but that too is its own entire book-length study at the minimum.

Plus you wouldn't, I mean, for various reasons, you wouldn't be the one to write that book. I mean, you can, like, you don't have to be, you know, I wrote about men and I'm not a man. So historians can write about other. Again, this is a research-based book. This is not largely based on personal experience. So I could if I had the training, if I had language facilities. You can write that. And there's advantages and disadvantages from writing as an insider or as an outsider. cool thing about scholarship is there are also methods and practices and peer review and standards

so that we were quite rigorous about, you know, how we approach these topics, which enables us to write about things that are very distant from us or things that are very close to us. And there are rules that we should follow in both ways. That's good. Chris, I'm gonna let you go. Thank you. So thank you so much for coming on the podcast. You've been an absolute delight to talk to. Love, love your book and the conversation that it started. Some of the ripple effects, the waves, the pushback, whatever. Like, oh, that's good and needed and healthy, I think. So I'm glad you think that too.

So yeah, many blessings on your next project, whatever that may be. Yeah, next one is called Live, Laugh, Love. And looking at a culture of white Christian womanhood. So working on that as we speak, or at least in a few moments, I'll get back to that. You're not slowing down. All right. All right. Take care, Crystal.

Yeah. Thank you so much. you