Jesus & John Wayne: Have White Evangelicals Corrupted the Faith? [Think Biblically Podcast]
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- The book Jesus and John Wayne has been the topic of immense discussion over the past few months. The subtitle of the book captures the key idea developed by Kristin Kobes Du Mez: "How white evangelicals corrupted a faith and fractured a nation." She argues that the election of Trump was not an aberration, but the natural result of certain militant, patriarchal views adopted by evangelicals. Is she right? Is she wrong? In this discussion, Sean and Scott highlight some positives of the book (and areas evangelicals need to take seriously), but they also raise some cautions and areas of disagreement with her key premise.
This is an episode of Biola's Think Biblically podcast. Subscribe for weekly audio episodes at www.biola.edu/...
========================
Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith & Culture is a podcast from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University.
Listen on Apple Podcasts: itunes.apple.c...
Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Listen on Overcast: overcast.fm/it...
Listen on Biola.edu: www.biola.edu/...
=========================
![Saying Goodbye to Jesus [Think Biblically Podcast]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/y5W6X3nYhjk/mqdefault.jpg)
![Saying Goodbye to Jesus [Think Biblically Podcast]](/img/tr.png)
![Jesus and Social Media [Think Biblically Podcast]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ujoRBKtGpmk/mqdefault.jpg)
I have listened to the author in several interviews and she comes across very credible in her construction of this book. As an African American it is reassuring that she covers racial issues & concerns other authors ignore.
I always find it interesting when people who have lived their entire existence with built in unmerited advantages want to tell others who do not possess those same advantages “it’s not about race” Your perspective alone is not the deciding factor in that statement.
Bill Clinton (eventually) took responsibility for his shortcomings and moral failures. He offered a seemingly heartfelt mea culpa and continues to revisit these moral downfalls in interviews, indicating that he has worked and continues to work on becoming a better version of himself while Trump never evens admits a misstep, let alone offers an apology. And I see no evidence of improved behavior. I try not to use the words “never” and “always” but in this case, I feel it is appropriate. I cannot identify ANY Christ-like characteristics in Trump. The closest he comes (IMO) to being Christ-like is that he has a God complex. Not the same thing.
Very well said. If I believed in an antichrist, Trump would be the antichrist.
Its a fantasy to say Bill Clinton dealt with his issues. I know the left has to pretend this is so in order to throw stones at the right but this is laughable. This whole topic is laughable and simply people on the left to continue their attacks on the evangelical church.
Drop the mic! Nothing more need be said
@@robertfetrow4612 He has, in the recent past (see the Hulu doc "Hillary"). The mea culpa I'm talking about and mostly interested in was mainly to his wife. They went through a lot of counseling--reportedly very painful counseling. There was also his apology after winning his second term...
From The Washington Post:
“Now that the Senate has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility,” Clinton said, “bringing this process to a conclusion, I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people.”
The statement lasted just a minute, and Clinton turned to walk away. A voice boomed from the press corps: “In your heart, sir, can you forgive and forget?”
Clinton paused, as if weighing whether to disregard his own plan to take no questions. Then he turned back. “I believe any person who asks for forgiveness has to be prepared to give it,” he said.
Story continues below advertisement
And so began the postimpeachment phase of his presidency. The themes were repentance for the private lapses of the past and resolve to plunge into public business in the future. Soon after Clinton’s Rose Garden statement, White House staff members had an e-mail pop up on the screen.
“The past year has been especially difficult for you,” Clinton wrote. “I know that my actions and the events they triggered have made your work even harder. For that, I am profoundly sorry. In all this, under the most extraordinary of circumstances, you never lost sight of your first obligation -- to serve the people of our nation.”
And you, typical of conservatives, in addition to not fact checking your own opinion, or acknowledging that it is an opinion, not a fact, do not address your person's failings, but just attack. And not very well. That smoke and mirrors game is gutless and lacks teeth, IMO.
Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think many know this and it didn't seem contrived or forced. It was after taking an honest inventory of himself.
White, male, evangelical discussing racism and the patriarchy (not the author): We’re not wrong, are we?
Another white, male, evangelical discussing racism and the patriarchy (also not the author): Of course not! We’re definitely right and open-minded.
There were points where I felt the same. "Of course not! We're definitely right and open-minded."
One thing was clear by the end for me--patriarchy is alive and well. Too bad Dr. Du Mez was
not on the program!
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING WHITE, EVANGELICAL, and MALE...AND having an actual opinion on ANYTHING. Good lord.
You guys made some fair points but made some critical mistakes in your analysis. Why do you assume that the 40% of evangelicals who didn’t vote were against Trump? Also, you missed a point about Clinton and Trump. As an evangelical in the 90s, I railed against Bill Clinton’s morality. But when it came to Trump, Evangelicals turned a blind eye. They had a chance to put their money where their mouth is, and didn’t. Instead, they became the hypocrites. Evangelicals only cry morality when it’s not their guy
"Evangelicals only cry morality when it’s not their guy." This is the key point. Nicely put. Evangelicals care about morality primarily as means to acquiring power.
Not true. People railed against Clintons moral short comings that were CURRENT. But remember....when he was running ..no one knew about how corrupt he was...Conservatives railed against his POLICIES. And then when his infidelities came to light ..that was AFTER he had already been elected. Trump on the other hand was attacked on PAST transgressions....which btw was when he was a democrat. And everytime they tried to paint him as this evil or that evil....the evidence they said they had NEVER panned out. Just like with Clinton prior to election....it was about POLICIES. Just like with Trump it was about POLICIES. AND the fact that he wouldn't bow down or fear neither the left nor the establishment right. When will you guys get this point? Those of us who voted for Trump have been making this distinction constantly and yall seem to keep ignoring it.
If Sean is serious about this book, why doesn't he have the author on and discuss this matter. It seems like a self- protective move that is attempting not to truly come to terms with the broader issues that the author is making.
Took the words out of my mouth.
Sean has a podcast for that kind of forum. This platform has these particular Christian Professors speaking on current issues they find relevant. I find Sean to be far more than gracious with people who are meant to be subtly or even overtly insulting in order to present themselves as intellectually and morally superior to Evangelicals, and I personally struggle to find the grace to do this myself-I find it quite tiring.
@@taramckinley7585 , So does this reflex apply to other Evangelicals, as the author of the book in question? IMO, it's just as likely that Evangelicals are the most resistant to critique since adherence to a "biblical" worldview endows them with a God-like arrogance, making many of them fundamentally impervious to real conversion in many respects.
@@scottwatson8659 It absolutely applies to other evangelicals, we all get things wrong, disagree, act like jerks, whatever, We're ALL fallen, broken creatures- I never said it didn't- what I DID say was that I am glad there are scholars, Theologians, and Christian Apologists out there that have more patience with people in their audiences, classes and online than I do, that will NOT speak to them the way YOU just did to me, because it happens all the time - even if we just make a statement about something, and it gets tiring. I am certainly a sinful and corrupt person, that's why I need God. I dont say or do the right things. I think Sean is kind and patient, I'm often not. Just because we have faith in God AND evidence to back it up doesn't make us arrogant, it makes us solid, but some people really get enraged by that for some reason and dont react well, that's all I meant. I am just as bad if I think I'm being insulted.
@@taramckinley7585 ,
It was not my intent to harm you in any way. What I wrote was not aimed at you personally. It was aimed exactly at what you asserted is the linchpin of your response: that faith in God and evidence makes Christians solid. Jesus said that demons have more than both these elements-- they have true existential knowledge of God but it didn't save them from spiritual corruption. It's not about being nice or an ass. It's the attitude that being "born again" makes one infallible, even with the Bible. That's the arrogance my I'm addressing. In fact, I believe that faith in God with it's assurance and evidence require that believers actually be more ruthless in self- interrogation, lest we end up like Lucifer. How can we do this? By actually listening to those outside our tribes and even outside the Faith to see where we may be lacking or need course correction. This is why philosophy, social history and historical theology are so important!
In this discussion their seemed to be a hesitancy to call Trump for what he is - a narcissistic bigot and habitual liar. This was obvious to me the first time I heard him speak in an interview. I wouldn't say I'm some expert at reading what people are, but Trump gave off waves of evil even in that first interview about his book that I saw in the early 90s. I find myself asking "Why can't the evangelicals see him for what he is?" I think they do see him for what he is and chose him anyway because he would say for them what they themselves felt it was "un-christian" to say. I had a pastor give me this excuse for him "God can choose even bad men to achieve his will." I frankly told him that was a lie. In the Bible, God may have chosen imperfect men, and men who would make mistakes, but you didn't see him choosing downright evil individuals to do his will. For the moment the evangelicals may think "Look we have achieved what we all wanted - getting rid of Roe vs Wade". But at what cost? Have the evangelicals not noticed their numbers are dwindling and that their churches have been discredited as corrupt institutions?
No one has done a better job at driving people away from the church than Christians themselves. I say this as a devout follower of Jesus who is distraught over what the 21st century evangelical cult has done to the faith.
He did choose evil people often to accomplish his judgements.
Have you ever read the Old Testament?
- Assyria, Babylon, Edom, Aram, Rome, Midian, the Philistines, and more were all tools of God's Justice.
- King Jehu was a violent, cruel man who killed off Ahab's descendants and Queen Jezebel. Just read his story from start to finish and think on your comment again.
They didn't men tion that about Trump because they are Republicans. And todays Republicans do not care how evil he is. ,
@@47shadows76 Judgment was generally against the religious folks. It is obvious you folks ignore the new testament, if you had you'd know that Jesus had no trouble with the gentiles, it was the religious folks such as yourself.
@@johnnysalter7072 Read your Bible again.
Jesus' entire message from when he began his 3-year ministry was telling people to repent. Telling them to go and sin no more (John 8:11) because sin (disobeying God's commandments) harms you, your family, your society, and puts you in range of God's judgment.
Matt. 4:17 - "From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”
Rom. 6:23 - "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
So he wouldn't have been tolerant of sin amongst the Gentiles (fornication, greed, adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, divorce, pride, godliness, arrogance, idolatry, atheism, etc.) as all of these go directly against his commands.
However, as Paul said "the salvation from Christ's death was for the Jew first, and then the gentiles" (Romans 1:16) since his people were to represent God's will on Earth.
So you're right that he had no direct smoke for the Gentiles- because they were lost, wicked, and Godless. Not a good thing.
That's like saying that because your mom didn't punish your homie for skipping school like you did, she approves of skipping school. No, you represent your family, so you get the heat first.
I'd rather be corrected than lost.
So, I'm not the audience for this talk and I respect the tone of the presenters. But even here the defensiveness is just seeping through the tone. Since the author never cops to having a theological agenda, you read one onto her. But instead of seeing that as pernicious and underhanded, you could equally see it as charitable in that she cant reconcile your theology for you but she's trying to give you tools to attempt to. I also cant help but point out that you claim "both political sides" are guilty of something and yet clearly are one the same one. Do you mean your words or is it just cover? Given that theology, as you claim, never captures a full political agenda why are their no left leaning presenters at this talk? This isnt a partisan university yet you'd have to be dense to not know who you folks votes for. I understand the presenters to be acting in good faith, but their attitudes are symptomatic of the problem described. They cant re-evaluate their views(maybe because they know they'd be accosted if they did), so they have to twist themselves knots to justify themselves.
I see this too. Well stated. They must always check their thoughts to make sure they align with prescribed cultural norms. Not always the Bible. This is where the "knots" you mentioned come in. They must try to squeeze all ideas into the new world order. Even empathy, kindness and ideas around harm. It must fit the culture. The have a hard time squaring (conflating) the evangelical, patriarchal cultural lens with babies in cages cuz man made borders and being a good Samaritan. So we get 🪢 🪢 and sometimes word salad. At least that is how it appears. I do appreciate how they are trying and that they are trying. So tired of having this POV yelled AT us and not discussed. The format is open and therefore, refreshing ✨️. I'm a fan.
Spot on.
@@individualm6712 A question: how does anybody understand anything outside deploying 'cultural norms'? What mental furniture can a person possess independent of culture? Your own post is parasitic on cultural norms. You assume that making a rational and moral objection is normative. You write your post in the English language and attempt a nuanced analysis of the discourse. All this is very 'normal' for a relatively well-educated western person. I live in England and find some US cultural norms somewhat baffling but with time and deliberate attention, I begin to get a grip on US practices. So please educate me, in what sense are you operating outside cultural norms?
But the very nature of this podcast is to provide a particular perspective on a book. It isn't predicated on an open-ended discussion of the said work. Therefore, your criticism seems unfounded. the two contributors aren't pretending to evaluate the book with a view from nowhere.
Wait, so they need left leaning individuals to discuss this issue? Is this what the author did? Yea, no
Here is the nut of the situation.... evangelicals are pushing for a theocracy in a very heterogeneous society, where most people are not evangelicals. Pushing for policies and laws that would satisfy their theological believes but trample on others rights is not the way to go.
.....and in the long run, trampling on others' rights can come to mean execution for "heresy."
Evil-gelicals is a more accurate term for these theocrats!
@@stevepierce6467 Who is trampling on whose rights and rights per the secular world or rights per the Bible?
@@robertfetrow4612 Evangelicals (willing tools of big business) are trampling on the rights of other christians, non-christians and non-religious people. Rights per the secular world are the ones that count, since they are for everyone, not just the few of one sect.
@@stevepierce6467 lol spoken like a true lib. You are right and anyone that disagrees is wrong and immoral. Btw, define the secular world and explain where aside from the USA these rights flourished you speak of. Ill wait
Y'all missthe point of the book! This is a history book. Yes, the history she includes can be tedious, but that is the premise of the book! Your attitude of "If you don't like history, jump to the end" really supports her hypothesis. To be a good evangelical, don't learn anything. Don't think. Don't use intellect God gave you to look deeper.
Sean has misunderstood the 80% statistic . He has confused it with the 48% non voting statistic. Those are two different data sets .
You do need to understand where any writer is coming from, and you need to do the same for talking heads. I didn't think you two had a great understanding of where this author was coming from.
Exactly.
I don't understand the point. I get it, maybe she should have said 80% of white Evangelicals THAT VOTED , voted for Trump. However, I'm sorry, that's splitting hairs. The majority of those that voted, voted for Trump. There is no writing that is the WHOLE story.
I appreciate that you bothered reading this book, and tried to be fair in its analysis. However, I also grew up "Evangelical", but black. I realize that people come to a subject from their own experiences, but realize you are doing the same. To say that you would question the whole premise of this book, because you recognize what appears to you to be author biases, is a bit much for me. You "asked your dad" and decided that something wasn't what everyone thought. I agree. NOTHING is what EVERYONE thought. There is no monolith among people. However, I've seen people in general, including Evangelicals, because that's who I'm around, decide that certain parts of racism don't exist because that's not what THEY'VE experienced, so it's not EVERYONE. This is naive, at best, but I feel this is how this numbers game on voting is being discussed here. The fact of the matter is MOST Evangelicals that voted, voted for Trump. How did that change what she's trying to say with the original statement of 80%? NOT MUCH! It's the same point, and my really "the point" at all. Also, those polls were not trying to "twist" any numbers. That's how all exit polls are conducted. Those that are willing to answer, and self identify with the group, answer the questions, they count them. That's polling. It's a swath of people that is used to infer information about the whole. I'm sure if you use statistics for anything, you've done the same thing. We know it's not EVERYONE, but no one is twisting anything, and that doesn't make what she's saying not valid.
That's like saying there were about 100 people in the crowd, and you come back and say, there were actually 110, PLUS the people watching on TV, so that number is really kind of misleading. No, it's not!
Also, the difference between Trump and Clinton is that the Democrats did NOT come to his rescue! They ACTUALLY voted to impeach him! 👀 I mean, yes, "some" people, there will always be some, but saying "the Democrats" did the same thing for Clinton is just plain wrong! (I will just interject here that I did not vote for Clinton. So, I'm not talking about myself.) When he was given a chance, but made to testify, then it was proven that he had done wrong and he was impeached for it, with several Dems in the House joining in on the vote for it. ) Not so for Trump. I don't even want to go into the shenanigans done by a lot of the GOP to stop that from happening! Ialso feel the situations were totally different, because the abuse of power pays off the inquiry was individual, and not proven. Unlike Trump which was an abuse of his office, acting for this whole country. It doesn't really matter though, because two wrongs don't make a right. However, in this case, I feel in your explanation you were doing what you were accusing the other side of doing. So the answer is never, they did it too! What difference does that make? Evangelicals, in general, have claimed to be the "moral majority", until they weren't, to get and keep power!
Again, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this and I agree with so much of what you said! So thank you for that! However, I feel this was a bit of a downplay of how bad Trump really was. Whether it's true or not, or whether he's right or wrong, just didn't cut it for me, when the things he said and did directly effect my life or those that look like me.
So, I really would like to know what "policies" people/Evangelicals agreed with of Trump's BESIDE "protecting the unborn"? I just have trouble with that. I also have trouble with people that are so very willing to "protect the unborn", but so willing to not "protect the born", all at the same time. I, then, find it hard to take them seriously. It just seems disingenuous to me, and like that really isn't the whole truth, but something they can stand behind to really just keep their privilege and power.
Again, this was a good conversation, though. Quite honestly, it was much more introspective and fairer than I thought it would be. I enjoyed listening. Thank you!
Please pray for me. I want to give up! I have been put down and called names all because of my poor financial situation even by my own family. I lost my job because I refused the vaccine. I refused due to my already failing health. Heart disease and lupus. I get so much hate on CZcams simply for asking for prayers it’s horrifying. As christian’s we should be able to cry out to one another and ask for prayers or just a shoulder to cry on. I have been struggling to provide for myself and my two autistic children both are non verbal. Taking care of my boys is my life but it’s overwhelming because they are special needs. My husband passed away three years ago so I’m all alone. I’m so overwhelmed! My situation already has me down, and depressed. We are facing eviction. We have nowhere to go! But I have so much faith that God will provide for me and my children. I know God loves us all. FAITH OVER FEAR!
Absolutely, FAITH over FEAR. My mother and I both have autoimmune issues. We both have suffered life long and we both experienced an instant feeling of well-being once taking the Covid vaccine(s). I share that because we each took different brands in different states and times. And compared to my 50 plus and her eighty plus years of autoimmune symptoms we have experienced, we both felt a distinct feeling of well-being. And I have been diagnosed with lupus and I couldn’t see your post and not share my experience. I will stop there and continue to keep you and your family in my prayers❣️
I’m reading this 11 months later. I hope that in the meantime you have found some peace and help in your situation. I said a prayer for you. Hopefully you have a church family you can plug into to get spiritual food and guidance. These have been troubling times and it appears you have had more than your share of trials and hills to climb. Hopefully things have improved for you. GB
@TiffMiller--I truly PRAY 🙏 that you’ve been able to receive the PEACE and healing that you’ve so needed. I totally understand you. Let me say this at those times in my life-which was only 6 months ago- I was truly overwhelmed ,and in severe pain due to SI JOINT-that has 3 Titanium screws securing it together 2019 surgery. I am 77yo and moving etc has been way too much for me. Yes, I’ve been single for 40+ years.
Anyway, I’ve never experienced being so overwhelmed as long as I was. This is what I did, and I never stopped as all I could say was “””JESUS, JESUS,JESUS-I trust you Lord I give you everything I’m going through to you. I surrender my will and know YOU-LORD are closer to me then any time in my life.”””
The main words used when I couldn’t pray 🙏 was “””JESUS, JESUS, JESUS”””
The enemy watches us and hears every word we say, therefore it’s important to stand firm in who you call LORD.
It may take a while before you get a release and Peace fills your emotions-physically,mentally and Spiritually--but do not give up❗️
******ALWAYS THANK THE LORD JESUS for answering your requests. Name each one ☝🏻 and REMEMBER-THANK THE LORD even if nothing has changed-victory is coming-📖 PSALM 121: 1-2******
(My picture here was my 70yo Birthday-people say I’ve not changed much-😊however my body doesn’t want to react when my mind is telling me I can do more.)
Excellent points - that the right were so opposed to Clinton and then ignored the issues with Trump is concerning and I think we need to talk about that more, acknowledge what was right and wrong in support of Trump so we can go forward better/repentant.
I brought this up repeatedly during trump’s 2016-20. No conservative was willing to acknowledge my point.
And these two glossed over trumps’ divorces and extra sexual affairs. Their white evangelical training of glossing over difficult / sinful behaviors by John Wayne types like trump affirms the author’s findings that lead to the conclusion they are justifying. Their not ready to grow from this. I pray the two men read the New Testament and meet the Real Jesus.
I voted for Hillary. I think conservatives, myself included, had been bombarded with years of right wing talking heads unfairly telling us of the “evils of the Clinton’s” and frankly brainwashed many people into thinking this way. Therefore many probably originally voted for Trump as a lesser of two evils thing. I felt Hillary was less divisive than Trump. I look back and I feel my vote was the right decision. Our country is even more fractured than ever now and I blame much of that on Trump, but also on the other republicans who did not stand up against him when they should have stood up. Trump has lied so much for his own self interest and we all know who is the father of lies. As a Christian I still do not understand my fellow evangelicals who still support him. I don’t have respect for Christian leaders who still support him. I think they have aligned themselves with very dark forces in our society for the sake of keeping power. I think they are sacrificing their witness for power. I can’t help but feel this way.
Kristin is spot on!! The evangelical church's support of Trump is the proof in the pudding!!
Exactly. Evangelical support of Trump is the "fruit" of evangelical theology.
You guys would have a lot more credibility if you actually had Dr. Du Mez on. I think her critiques are pretty fair.
Never happen.
She is a radical feminist. No credibility
Itd be great to see this convo had with people of different ethnic background n perspectives
Until then they are in the echo chamber.
Those people never think about that....which is the problem
I couldn’t agree more I thought what an amazing way to truly show all sides of the topic, because frankly there are sides to every topic, and how much more credible people are when they sit down across the table from the person of the opposing side and have a conversation instead of from the safety of not having them face-to-face. I would’ve also felt differently about their video about LGBTQ, and a very different manner. Had they had somebody from that community sitting in and receiving their comments in person, and being able to speak from that position so that it is in fact, a fair and balanced view.
Your "both sides" "whataboutism" is tedious.
These two seemed a lot more defensive than they wanted to admit.
Brought to you by two white evangelicals....
Exactly. I wanted to hear the white male critique of this book and they did not disappoint. Too bad.
🤷♀️🤷And your point is WHAT⁉️
This was to deal with John Wayne who just happened to be white!
Thank you for this! I can always trust you guys to be fair and charitable. Thank you for acknowledging the valid concerns Dr. DuMez raises AND reminding us to have a critical eye while reading things like this
I can't imagine any non Evangelical feeling "disenfranchised" .... why would you say that?
Have the Author on your show
Never ever happen.
Why is the best example of Christian manhood given to boys/men not Jesus? Jesus as a man is a very balanced person in his actions, he is passionate and angry during the rare times it is appropriate and he is tender and giving and wise all the rest of the time. Of course he is also way above just a man, and he is also an example for women in how to act, but I really don't understand why Evangelical men seem uncomfortable with the holistic picture of Jesus in the Gospels as a vision of aspirational humanity in masculine form?
Very interesting discussion. In my own life, I've been influenced by the message of Jesus in the attitudes and behavior of Fred Rogers rather than John Wayne.. In his quiet way, Mr. Rogers' influence on children and their parents whether Christian or not has been loving, profound, and lasting.
While The Reformed Church in America is not Evangelical, it is hardly a fringe movement .. and certainly far more mindful and intellectual in it's approach than most evangelical churches we see. Again, you probably don't realize just how defensive you come across, yet you do and it doesn't help your view.
This broadcast is for evangelicals, it’s a warning for evangelicals to look away. If you’re open minded and want fairness, get out of here!!!
When Sean appeals to Thomas Sowell, I start to question how sincere he is about dealing with racism. Sowell is the "go-to" black conservative to make whites believe they are going down the right path. Why not Bernard Boxill?
Your defensiveness is what i would expect .... having been a part of the evangelical church for over 57 years. I left the evangelical church (now episcopalian) 20 years ago because of many of the issues that Kristin writes about in this book. This book, more immediately, has helped me to answer the mind boggling question re: HOW white evangelicals continue to support donald trump. Quite frankly, that alliance has, for me, utterly and forever destroyed any iota of whatever credibility that white evangelials ever hoped to have. I understand your defensiveness .. in your shoes I would probably be the same, however if it's not too late for the white evangelical movement to turn around ... there is absolutely no hope for your movement. It's been going downhill for decades ... and you honestly seem blind to it.
Would Jesus have run his Church for white evangelicals and in support of their politics?
YES. and he wouldn't care if they were white..
Regarding church leadership ... no matter WHAT the Baptists/Fundamentalists/Evangelicals say ... in Christ there is neither male nor female. You people seem to have no problem with women going overseas to preach to people of other races ... it's just that white men in the white evangelical church are supposedly of a different category than those men women and children of brown and black races on the mission field.
Why is everything about RACE⁉️
I sure don’t have a problem, but I can sure understand why in 2023 that race issues seem to be getting worse. Turn off your TV-NEWS that is promoting division as only Satan divides. Sorry, but there are very liberal thinking people who love division and it’s even affecting the Democratic Party-SAD😢
America 🇺🇸 cannot heal without people willing to stop 🛑 racist remarks.
Alert 🚨Answer for America 🇺🇸 ~~~~~📖 2 CHRONICLES 7:14
✝️🙏🧎🏻♀️🧎🏽
The color of their skin isn't the issue. But your framing the question in that way is perhaps a clue as to what the real problem is.
Cultural Marxism infiltrating all aspects of society
That could be a good future topic - to expand on the issue of narcissism in the church and the damage it’s doing to cultures perspective of the church. It seems to me “narcissism” maybe a spectrum with similar issues, and I wonder if it is somewhat connected to hypocrisy and secrecy of porn and immorality in the church. I’m concerned about this fruit and confusion in the church because it’s one of those sins that remains hidden and reveals later, 1 Tim 5:24. I feel it needs light shed on it to help the struggling to come out from, and also, sadly, in some instances repent of, enabling that confusion.
Yes our leaders should tackle these problems as Paul told us, Anyone who doesn’t repent should be taken out of the Church, it is very disturbing to hear Polls that say nearly 50 % of Christians think Abortion is acceptable
@@garyjaensch7143 Exactly so what exactly is the author getting at aside from a secular view of how the church should operate? Its very confusing how she attempts to dismantle men, the church, sexuality and how her critiques seem to align with left wing ideologies.
@@robertfetrow4612 She never mentioned how it should operate, she merely pointed out as best as possible how morally depraved and decadent the evangelical chirch has become.
@@johnnysalter7072 pointing out people sin isn’t a thing
It’s a political argument and yes she did say how they should operate. They should gay marriage, women in leadership and many other more political items
You really don’t sound serious with that comment
29:17..."the notion that men are initiators and women are responders, is a gross over simplification, and taught nowhere in the Scriptures"...I've been saying this for years.
People miss that the title is from a song by the Gaither Christian singing group called Jesus and John Wayne.
Sean maybe a white evangelical, but he isn’t a white male minority evangelical who left the faith due to exactly what the author describes. The faith requires a lack of critical thought, you can’t stay an evangelical and also be an educated thinker. Based on my experience it isn’t possible- so Trump will always have a sea of minions- those looking for someone to tell them what to think as they cannot critically think through issues on their own. That is exactly my experience in the evangelical church- leaders are the brain and Messiah, the congregation won’t and doesn’t think on their own, and women are encouraged not to have brains at all. JMO- much respect
Wow, that book review was crengy. Nice effort but they seemed to be defensive of the accusations while rambling on and on about this or that and yet recommending a book that was a biased history of evangelical Christianity. I can think of a lot of ways to waste my time but reading a book like that would probably take the cake. That's a hard pass for me fellas.
I agree...the book is OBVIOUSLY deeply slanted. Not objective at all and is indicative of a bias that the author thinks she is so smart to write.
I really appreciated this, as someone who more takes Dr. Du Mez's part. In my case, my relationship with Evangelicalism (as an Evangelical Christian myself) was complicated by the fact that my militant atheist dad came to embrace Christian Nationalism on account of Trump and the general shift in conservative politics during Trump's time in office. I even made my own video about that on my channel - though it's a very personal and difficult deconstruction of Evangelical identity rather than an introspective conversation.
Where I really agree with you is that ideas of militant masculinity and complementarianism don't really explain why churches cover up their pastors' wrongdoing. I think it's much more to do with fear driving Evangelicals toward a vertical of power relationship between the Evangelical identity (not faith) and its agents in the world.
I think there's a question that can really put it into perspective: How many Evangelicals, and which ones do you personally know, who, when reading about statistics of young people leaving the Church, are made to feel heartbroken for the people who are abandoning a Christian community? And how many are made to feel afraid for themselves and their community?
That, I think, is the difference between an Evangelical who is motivated to introspectively heal the church, and one who is motivated to politically protect and empower the church.
Why do we have to add labels to being a Christian? That’s like adding Jesus and….
This book obviously was written with a particular political and ideological view of race, religion, and masculinity and in my opinion, wasn't subjective at all.
For those needing a guide, order it soon: How to live amongst white evangelicals without really trying
Sometimes when you live amongst people whose values and ideals are the antithesis of your own, you have to make certain kinds of adaptations. You also sometimes have to learn a new language. The purpose of this article is to help those of you stuck in communities that pitch you far out of your element. If you find yourself surrounded by white evangelicals, there is no reason to panic. This article is intended to help you cope. This article is written to help anyone who is not a white Evangelical to live comfortably in a community filled with them. Maybe not comfortably. But at least how to survive.
We will review the new language and its meaning. We will also point out some aspects of their culture that may have escaped you. Clarification of those aspects may help make the community more understandable to you. You won’t ever feel you’re part of the community because they don’t want you to be. Also, would you really want to be part of theirs? I doubt it. However, at least the community won’t feel so foreign to you.
We will start off by putting to rest certain stereotypes. For example, it’s not true that a child can’t get a decent education in a community filled with white evangelicals. True, if you value education, this may be a very challenging feat. However, it is not impossible.
Your child can be educated, even if the rest of community is filled with white evangelicals. In fact, your child does not even have to attend, the local “Clasping Hands High School “. Because the fairy tales learned in those schools will be of little use to your child, your child’s time might be better served by enrolling your child in a public school that clearly differentiates fairy tales from facts, history, and science. It is important to note the risk, however. Your child will still be living amongst people who confuse their fairy tales with facts, science, and history. But at least your child will not have incorporated that confusion into their value system. There’s something to be said for avoiding that... A lot to be said for that.
Key is ensuring your children do not adopt the prevailing values of the community. Then, when free to leave the community for college, they will learn that "dumb" is not as valued elsewhere as it is in the white evangelical community. There's a lot to be said about that!
Go ahead ... tell the other side ... WITH HONESTY AND CREDIBILITY ... not out of dishonest defensiveness .... but with credibility. Your defensiveness betrays whatever credibility you might think you have.
Your dad was mentioned, so you support parts of the book just enough to seem as though you are being fair and then you proceed to tear the book apart. SMH...
I don’t understand what they meant by “giving ___ a pass” despite character flaws. Is that just voting for this person despite their issues?
I really really appreciate what you both say about not being defensive.
They are defensive.
You're wasting time explaining your defensiveness. Just get into the book itself. Please.
I read most of her book I agree of what she said
37:29 - that may be the extent of her perception. Thankfully, it sounds as though you share enough objective facts or ideas, that you can now spread the "good gospel" to those that "cannot hear her."
Interesting discussion ; one wonders, not to question the thread of the vid, how ironically unlike John Wayne , presumptuously thinking of his movie roles , these saviours aand "heroes" are , eg. apart from standing as the directive head of their followers
Excellent critique. Impressively fair and unbiased.
The most successful chefs are men. Women prefer home cooking while men prefer cooking for a restraunt. Timing is everything. I can't cook well enough to get paid to do it. My husband can run circles around most of the others in the professional kitchen.
at least the point about not asking why they voted for Trump and making an assumption is huge and a very Democratic party thing to do. I also really appreciate pointing out the exit polls statistic. versus actual voters versus actual Americans. great observations. I wish I recognize things like that more often
If evangelicals don’t know what evangelical is then what is all the talking heads about?
About the bit regarding the evangelical DT vote percentage… perhaps statics can be dissected (i.e. Covid discussions) but as an evangelical of 7 decades, my life experience would support the uncanny evidence of that massive vote.
The author jumps around several topics within paragraphs, even sentences so it’s difficult to understand what idea she is trying to develop. It’s Like having root canal work that last for 300 pages.
I take it back. It’s a great book.
She couldn't cause anyone to get saved, but probably caused people to turn away from Christianity.
Discussed by two white evangelicals...okay.
I think the left were pointing out that Trump’s affairs were hypocritically accepted by evangelicals that condemn them. The left generally doesn’t see sexual morals as big an issue with their political leaders.
Using terms like "The Left" is just a lazy way of putting millions of people into a box and slapping a label on it. Perhaps there are individuals that are politically "Left" that have these views but when you apply it to some entity you call "The Left" it's just a way of dehumanizing people.
@@WhateverHappenedToHer0331 that makes no sense, you are still using term "the left" to describe your personal opinion. Are you a spokesperson for everyone left of center politically? Why don't you just say "I"?
The left has not set itself up as the moral majority. Pointing their fingers at others in judgment. These guys did not disappoint. True to form.
@@Rosiegarten I don't know what people mean when they say the "Left", as if this is an organized group instead of individuals that might be politically left. Is it easier for you to slap a label on ideas you don't like and call it "The Left"?
@@bipslone8880 whoa now. I am not what you call the right at all. However I don’t identify with labels. Period.
Why would the complementary in principle, if it’s a principle apply only to the church and home and not to all the rest of life? That makes no sense. It doesn’t pass the logic smell test.
The only thing that corrupts faith is not believing in God, and to believe in God you have to actually follow his commandments, it really couldn’t be more plainly written in the Bible,Saying you believe in Jesus isn’t believing, doing his commandments show you love God in your heart.
Luke 8:21
“And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.”
Luke 14:27
“And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”
Luke 6:46
“And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”
Luke 11:27
“And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.”
Luke 11:28
“But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”
I found studying Michael J Oards work, increased my faith immensely, and reducing the amount of blaming other brothers.
It’s just more regime-approved, politically correct bigotry. Tiresome.
Lol wut.
First of all STOP calling them my people. We are all people of the earth with or without religion.
Yes, and there is a visible result, lower church attendance.
Did an actual university turn out this interview? There was no engaging with the text just a defense of evangelical is which these two obviously belong too
I think you could do the US and the World a favor by doing a deep dive on complimentary roles. In particular debate Jehovah Witnesses' on this. All religious people share the same arrogance: that everyone believes religion is important. But Jehovah Witness's are on a whole 'nother level of religious arrogance. They claim to know the Bible the best. What better way to prosecute this topic then with a Bible institute? no? Further, I think this would flush out the claims made in the John Wayne book. You all left the impression that the author was under-cutting gender roles in the Bible. Well, rather than look tone deaf debating women on this topic, why not debate a white male Jehovah. Or possibly even a Mormon?
Two talking heads trying to have it both ways. They have a limited grasp of how important history is in understanding human "reality", almost to the point of poopooing her approach and interpretation of historical facts. Du Mez has provided an important, rigoroursly researched analysis of the topic, based on facts, but the discussion here is a perfect example of confirmation bias. They obficate. This reminds me of conservative pundants who ignore anything that tRump has done "wrong" because what Hilary "did" is more relevant.
The Kingdom of God is antithetical to Empire. That’s where a Billy Graham is difficult.
No but it sounds like you all have
A majority of white evangelicals who voted, voted for Trump.
Is Jesus and the his twelve Apostles white evangelicals?
They were not white. The apostles were followers of Jesus.
What is white evangelical culture?
Interesting conversation. Fair and balanced….for real.
What a great conversation!
Albeit one sided.
go
If anything, you underplay the biased nature of this book. Those of us that were part of the history that she describes find many of her characterizations unrecognizable. She'll sell a lot of books though. The religious left loves her broad stroke narrative of Evangelical culpability.
Why are 2 white men discussing this? 🤔 Why is this not something you open to real debate🤷🏾♀️ So I guess you don't really want to investigate if this is true🙈
Title was👉 JESUS and JOHN WAYNE-too bad people have become offended over the color of their skin!
Only SATAN DIVIDES. Choose your Master wisely as there are only 2 Masters-JESUS makes this very clear. 📖
@@FLIPPER1439 White Males are loathed today. it is soooo ok to demand they dont evan speak.
@Genesis 12:3 = Matthew 25:31-46
Israel's Descendants
Jesus's Brethren
goats sheep
Anyone who even poses such a question in such a frame ought to be beaten in public.
This conversation between two white men shows why her book is so spot on. The Evangelical church is not about Jesus it’s about race and power!
How can you corrupt something that is TOTALLY CORRUPT TO START WITH.
After all we all KNOW THAT JESUS WAS GAY.
I tried to listen to this but the older white man showed why the book is so right
Evangelicalism has always been dangerous.