Review of Du Mez’s Jesus and John Wayne

Jesus and John Wayne is among a plethora of similar books that have been published in the past few years.  Although this specific book aims to show that “White Evangelicalism” is a corrupt system and has been a major destructive force in our nation, many others have been published in the vein of gender issues, American history, Christian nationalism, etc.  They all seem to have the same goal:  show that what we are seeing is nasty to its core, destroy it, and replace it with something different and better. This book is an attempt to demonize an entire subset of American Christians who are determined to hold fast to the Word of God and not change it with the times.  It is slanderous.  It is biased.  It only tells one side of history, demonizing those with whom the author disagrees.  Books like this disparage Biblical Christianity, while all the while turning your eyes towards something else.  In this case- White Evangelicals.

Ironically, people in Du Mez’s camp often decry the narratives in society that presents a one-sided view of history, although that is exactly what Du Mez presents in this book.  The narrative she dispenses is viewed as “acceptable” because it tells the story in a way that demonizes white Christian men, as well as implicates Evangelicals as a whole.  This is a full-front assault on the Bible, and Du Mez’s narrative has the effect of undermining Biblical Christianity, based on true stories of those who have abusively and sinfully used their God-given authority.  She seeks to show that the system of what she labels “rugged masculinity” (I.e. male leadership) and “Christian nationalism” (I.e. a phrase thrown around today by more liberal Christians to label those who are on a different side politically) is corrupt, and that men and women have used this system under the banner of Biblical Christianity as a means to gain power.  Not only this, rugged masculinity and Christian nationalism are, in Du Mez’s view, symptoms of a deeper issue.  The stories throughout this book drive a narrative meant to demonstrate that at its core, American Evangelicalism is militant.  Men have hidden under the banner of Evangelicalism as a means by which to gain militant political power.  They have lumped Jesus and John Wayne together. Du Mez does this without ever appealing to Scripture. She does this through painting a well-crafted narrative, implicating a Christians’ hidden motives and agendas.

What about the Bible?

For a book seeking to show that “white evangelicals have corrupted a faith,” the Bible is strangely missing from this book.  Sure, Du Mez makes a few references to the Bible, but just when it fits into the narrative she is trying to tell.  She will use Biblical phrases, such as “fight the good fight,” or “run the race” as a way to “prove” her narrative. She does not use Scripture as a means for determining what is right and true, only to show which verse or verses a certain group has used to support their position, whether valid or not.

If Du Mez’s view is that “White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith,” which it is, then the burden is on Du Mez to show Biblically how these evangelicals have strayed from the truth and have promoted and taught error.  The only way to do this is to hold up the beliefs of those whom she disagrees with next to the unchanging text of Scripture.  Du Mez does not make any attempt to do such a thing.  Instead, she makes broad assumptions about the motives of individuals, giving her the freedom to completely side-step any Biblical issues that they raise.  Since she discredits individuals’ Biblical viewpoints by attributing vice to their motives for even raising such a Biblical viewpoint, Du Mez need not even address what the Bible says.  Her view is that the Bible has been weaponized systematically in order to prop up militant Christian men.

Du Mez critiques people throughout this book that hold views that are directly in line with Scripture and historic Christianity. To Du Mez, their views are not valid because they have an agenda. However, the vast majority of the people mentioned in this book are solidly Biblical. By discarding their teaching, one must discard the Bible. The reader is guided to question and ultimately throw out these beliefs because they have been corrupted by wicked individuals.

There is no knowledge of the “faith” without the Bible. If one does not use Scripture as the means by which to understand God, Jesus, our own nature, the world around us, and our own personal beliefs, all we are left with is ourselves as the foundation for which to determine truth.  Scripture says that those who are in Christ are members of God’s household.  We know what it means to be part of God’s household because our faith is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus being the corner stone.” (Ephesians 2:20). Christian faith is not moldable, changing with the time.  It is built upon Christ, who has revealed Himself through the Scriptures by means of the prophets and apostles.  Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life…” (John 14:6), and Jesus Himself affirmed the truthfulness of the Word of God (John 17:17).  We find truth in God’s Word.  We get to know Jesus through God’s Word.  If Scripture is not the standard upon which we measure truth and defend truth then we have formed a faith of our own making.  Indeed, we have corrupted a faith. Du Mez does not hold any of the views she despises up to the light of Scripture.  She forms conclusions about theology and “harmful” doctrines and beliefs apart from the Bible.  Because of this, Du Mez is actually doing the very things she accuses others of.  She is corrupting a faith.  A faith built upon shifting sands is not the faith handed down by the apostles and prophets.  A faith that can be tossed out because of a few bad actors is not a faith with Christ as the cornerstone.

Without holding up peoples’ beliefs and actions to the Word of God and the truth revealed within its pages, Du Mez has no means by which to say that something is corrupt.  If she cannot demonstrate faith in its uncorrupted form, then who is Du Mez to say that men and women have “corrupted the faith?”

Du Mez ultimately diminishes the Word of God by elevating human experience over revealed truth. It is the oldest trick in the book, stemming back to Satan’s twist of God’s Word in the garden of Eden. In essence, she uses human experience as a means by which to illustrate that God’s Word really doesn’t mean what it says. 

What about all the stories?

Du Mez’s book slanders men, complementarians (a Biblical position that states that men and women’s roles are equal, yet distinct), those with white skin, those who settle under the broad banner of Evangelicalism, those who support any form of patriarchy or male leadership and strength, and the list goes on.  Du Mez immediately sets herself up as the morally superior one, and those who hold different views as being power hungry, white supremacist, and dangerously militant. When speaking of a Trump rally that she witnessed, Du Mez says, “I wondered who these people were.  I didn’t recognize them.” (pg. 2). She could not identify with these people. She was superior.

How does she do this? What Du Mez does in this book is use stories to drive a narrative.  She uses stories to guide the reader to certain conclusions.  Du Mez uses stories to demonize and pronounce moral shortcomings upon those with whom she disagrees.  Within the pages of this book, you will find that Billy Graham was a horrible person, the organization Promise Keepers was filled with militant, racist men, Elisabeth Elliot was damaging with her widely accepted view of Biblical submission in marriage, James Dobson’s parenting ministry was patriarchal and oppressive, Hobby Lobby reinforces gender stereotypes, and more.  You will also read stories concerning Bill Gothard, Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and many, many others who have identified themselves under the banner of Evangelical. 

Some of the stories will simply slant the character a certain way, fitting them into the grand narrative she is painting. Other stories relay true and real abuses that have been carried out under the banner of Christianity.  The common thread is to implicate the character’s motives. Du Mez lumps all these stories together to form a grand narrative, illuminating how all of these individuals have served to prop up damaging “rugged masculinity” and “Christian nationalism.”  They do this because they are rooted in militancy and have used the “faith” to hide their true motives.  She pulls all these characters together and uses them to paint with a broad brush, implicating Evangelicalism as a whole.  As a result, this does not lead to clear thinking on the issues.  Instead, it vilifies.

Stories can help us to better understand the truth.  The problem with the narrative that Du Mez paints throughout this book, however, is that her view is that those who are holding Biblical positions are actually damaging others because of those Biblical positions. Their behavior is evidence of the system they have propped up as a means by which to help others, such as President Ronald Reagan, gain militant political power. This is all displayed in her clever use of storytelling.  

Do we as Christians embrace doctrine based on narratives, or do we embrace doctrine based upon what the Bible says?  If it’s anything other than Scripture, including the failures of Christians (perceived or real), we will construct a Christianity without Christ as the head.  We become the source for truth. This is not Christianity. This is simply a worship of self.

An Example of Biased, Untruthful Storytelling to Paint a Narrative

The movie Fireproof was given a small sliver of mention in the book, but I want to consider what Du Mez says about it because it demonstrates the spin she so easily puts on the stories she tells. Fireproof is one that has been viewed and enjoyed by many. It is a common and known film in Christian spaces.  On page 191 Du Mez explains the movie Fireproof to be “a film about a heroic but angry firefighter who feels his wife does not show him sufficient respect and turns to a Christian self-help book to save his marriage.”  She says that the producer of the film was “reaching evangelicals” through “dominionistic-inspired teachings celebrating a patriotic militant Christian masculinity.”  This “resonated with evangelicals awakened to the ‘problem’ of masculinity by the broader evangelical men’s movement.” She is saying that evangelicals of the time did not view men as behaving masculine enough, and this movie puts them back in their proper place as militant men.

Does that sound like the movie you watched?  The movie I watched was about firefighter who had a porn addiction that was wrecking his marriage.  The movie was one of redemption about a man who learned to serve his wife and untangle his life from this sinful lifestyle. It was about fighting for your marriage using Biblical principles and keeping your vows to your spouse.

Du Mez spins the movie in a completely different way.  How was this movie at all about male dominion and “militant Christian masculinity?”  Du Mez sees this problem of militant Christian men everywhere she looks and ascribes militancy where there is none. This film was not a “celebration” of “patriotic militant Christian masculinity.”  Yet Du Mez sees Christian militancy to the be the major underlying problem of evangelicalism, so she sees it in a film such as this.  Du Mez’s persistent use of footnotes makes everything she says seem unquestionable, yet the footnote for this paragraph points the reader to a couple of sources (relevant to Fireproof: A Huffpost article and a blog post) where you will find opinion pieces slamming the actor Kirk Cameron for his role in the movie and his connections with “Christian Patriarchy.”  These are not unbiased sources that prove anything, just more of the same- all meant to make Du Mez’s assumptions and narrative appear be pure historical fact.  This is so deceptive.  

Du Mez uses persistent footnotes throughout the book. If someone could take the time to look at each one, I reckon you would find more of what is found in the above example. She is not simply using unbiased historical sources.  She is persistently pulling from sources and real quotes people have said and using them to paint the narrative she wishes to paint. 

What effect does a book like this have?

For the believer, the effects a book like this could have are numerous.  If I were to read this book and take at face value every story, assumption, and intended implication, it would leave me floundering. This would not be because my faith is in any way built off of the opinions and beliefs of others, but because Du Mez has undermined the entire foundation on which Biblical Christianity is formed: Christ and the Scriptures. This would cause me to distance myself from the Word because she has cleverly demonstrated that actually standing firm on the plain meaning of the text of the Bible is oppressive and damaging, and those who do stand on Scripture only do so because they seek power.

Also, if I were to buy into the stories, assumptions, and implications of this book, I would be rendered ineffective.  Why?  Because now my entire foundation for determining truth is gone. I would begin to distance myself from other believers who believe similar things to the characters in this book (I.e. Biblical complementarianism, some form of patriarchy, strong men, Biblical submission) because I would have trained myself through this book to recognize and understand their hidden motives.  They might not know that what they believe and how they behave is based in “white Evangelicalism” and “militant masculinity,” but I would have been enlightened to that fact through this book.  This would lead me to question everyone’s hidden motives and ascribe sins and intentions where there just aren’t any.  That’s what Du Mez does masterfully through crafting a narrative through this book.

If I were to buy into the stories, assumptions, and implications of this book, I would withdraw myself from any sort of political involvement.  Du Mez asserts that Christian political involvement is simply used as a means by which to gain power.  She creates a false dichotomy between faith and politics, implying that they should be separate and need not affect each other.  This takes the voices and influence of Christians out of the public sphere and makes it a purely private matter.  Of course, Christians who advocate for causes left of center are exempt from this because Du Mez demonstrates that those on the right have corrupt motives.

If I were to buy into the stories, assumptions, and implications of this book I would not only do all the above, but I would devote my future faith walk to the task of dismantling this harmful ideology. This is a deconstructionist book at its core, and Du Mez admits that on the last page.  She says, “Appreciating how this ideology developed over time is also essential for those who wish to dismantle it.  What was done might also be undone.” (pg. 304)

Conclusion

To wrap it up, Du Mez said something toward the beginning of her book that I thought was spot on.  On page 5, Du Mez says, “When Evangelicals define themselves in terms of Christ’s atonement or as disciples of a risen Christ, what sort of Jesus are they imagining?  Is their savior a conquering warrior, a man’s man who takes no prisoners and wages holy war? Or is he a sacrificial lamb who offers himself up for the restoration of all things? How one answers these questions will determine what it looks like to follow Jesus.”

Du Mez is right.  The way we view Jesus, and consequently His Word, determines what it looks like to follow Him.  If we have a low view of who Jesus is that does not align with Scripture, we are making a Jesus in our own image.  That is not the true Jesus.  If we lower the authority of God’s Word, submitting it instead to personal experience and the experiences, goodness, or sins of others, we are not serving and following the Jesus of the Bible.  We are following a Jesus of our own making.  

This book serves to undermine the authority of Scripture and of Jesus Himself. It serves to tear down the faith that many men and women described within its pages stand for.  It elevates human experience and narrative over the clear teaching of Scripture.  Believers, that is not how a disciple of Christ ought to live in light of who Jesus is, what He has accomplished, and what He calls us to in His Word.  He calls us to humble submission and obedience to Him and His Word. The authority is not us. It’s not others. It’s Him. 

If you stand on His Word, you are in the right place.  A faith planted firmly on the truth of Scriptures can withstand the heat.  It will withstand others who will question your motives.  It will withstand the biased accusations of others. It will withstand the slander of those who wish to discredit your witness. It might not win you favor with the world, but you will be rewarded.

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)