Here in Part 3 of my analysis of Kristin Kobes Du Mez’s (KDM) book, Jesus and John Wayne, I am going to cover chapters 3-4 in her book. I’ve realized that to try to cover four chapters per post would mean extremely long posts, so I am going to cover two chapters per post. Again, with each chapter I will give a short summary and then provide my thoughts and comments on that chapter. It’s Jesus and John Wayne! Giddy-up!
Chapter 3: God’s Gift to Man—Summary
In chapter 3, KDM focuses on the response of Evangelical and Catholic women to the feminist movement in the 1970s. Primarily as a reaction to feminism and the push for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), Evangelical women like Marabel Morgan and Elizabeth Elliot began teaching that the way to marital bliss was for women to devote themselves to their husbands, treat them with respect and honor (to use the biblical phrase, “submit” to them), and to have an enjoyable sex life within the marriage. In addition, there was Phyllis Schlafly, a Catholic who became the face of conservative women. Among other things, she opposed Communism and the ERA as well. She said that it was a ludicrous that women were oppressed in America. She said that women did not need the help of the federal government to flourish. She also (as well as conservatives and Evangelicals a like) was fervently opposed to Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand.
According to KDM, Schlafly was anti-feminist, anti-Communist, pro-Christian nationalism, and pro-militarism. And even though she wasn’t overtly racist, she really was. According to KDM, Schlafly was for private schooling, and that meant she wanted white parents to have the right to keep their kids away from black kids. As for the ERA, Schlafly “almost singlehandedly…sabotaged the ratification of the ERA” (72). Incidentally, one of the reasons Schlafly opposed the ERA was because it “threatened to turn public restrooms into unisex spaces” (71). Therefore, opposition to this was both sexist and racist, for not only did it play into the Evangelical stereotype of “the perceived sexual vulnerability of white women” (71). The bottom line is that Schlafly “helped unify white Christians around a rigid and deeply conservative vision of family and nation” (73).
My Reaction to Chapter 3
Obviously, this chapter is primarily about women and women’s rights, and obviously, a lot more can be written about each one of the more minor points in the chapter, so my comments are not going to be comprehensive and thorough. Keeping in mind that the main “thesis” of the book is that white Evangelicals have corrupted Christianity and fractured the nation, it seems to me that KDM is suggesting that Morgan’s and Elliot’s view that wives should be devoted to their husbands and have fulfilling sex lives within marriage is somehow bad. I find that hard to believe that KDM really thinks devotion to one’s spouse and a healthy marital sex life is bad, but this is one of the main problems in the book—she never takes the time to precisely tease out any of the issues she brings up.
Instead, she simply jumps on the biblical phrase, “wives submit to your husbands” (Ephesians 5:22), and cries “patriarchy!” She doesn’t try to explain just what Morgan and Elliot mean by that, and she doesn’t even try to look at the larger context of Ephesians 5, where just a verse earlier Paul calls upon husbands and wives to submit to each other. The mere word “submit” seems to have triggered her to where she immediately stuffs into that word every conceivable dystopian horror from The Handmaid’s Tale. Now, obviously one can find examples within the Evangelical world where husbands are clearly domineering, patriarchal, and abusive, and Ephesians 5:22 is used to justify it. (For that matter, though, you’ll be able to find domineering and abusive men in every conceivable people group in the world). But to scream “abusive patriarchy” whenever an Evangelical refers to Ephesians 5:22 when talking about Christian marriage is rather juvenile. Just because some Evangelicals abuse the meaning of that verse to justify bad behavior, that doesn’t mean that all Evangelicals, by virtue of referring to that verse, endorse patriarchy and the abuse of women.
I also find it odd that KDM calls women like Morgan, Elliot and Schlafly “anti-feminist” because of their opposition to the ERA. And let’s just be honest—in the 40 years since the ERA’s defeat, do women have more or less rights and opportunities in America? I think we know the answer to that. It’s not that people don’t want equal rights and opportunities—the issue that Schlafly was making is that the amendment was unnecessary. In fact, she argued that the ERA could actually hurt women—it could make women susceptible to the draft, they could lose protections like alimony and have a harder time maintaining custody of their children in divorce cases. My point is simply that when it came to the ERA, women like Schlafly were bringing to light actual points that needed to be considered. Therefore, to characterize opposition to the ERA as nothing more than being “pro-patriarchy” and “anti-woman” (especially when the opposition to it came from women) is just really simplistic.
What about the issues of abortion and private schooling? As far as abortion is concerned, I wrote a post on my view a while back. But if we are going to look at Evangelical opposition to abortion in light of the title of the book, we are going to have to admit that opposition to abortion has been emphasized by Christians for the past 2,000 years. In the Didache, and early second century Christian text, it clearly shows that the early Christians viewed abortion as akin to infanticide. So, one simply cannot say that on the issue of abortion, the Evangelical stance is a “corruption” of the Christian faith. That being said, it is a very complex issue, so to use it as a political football (by saying anyone who is pro-choice for any reason is a “baby-killer” or anyone who is pro-life “hates women”) is shameful and wrong.
As for KDM’s pretty clear assertion that Schlafly was a racist because she approved of private schooling, and that being against unisex bathrooms is also racist—come on. As is becoming a recurring theme in the book, simply because you can find a few actual racists who want private schooling for their racist reasons, or you can find a quote of a racist woman making a racist comment about how she didn’t want a black man coming into the same bathroom she was in, that doesn’t mean that everyone who likes private schools and everyone who is against unisex bathrooms is racist.
Chapter 4: Discipline and Command—Summary
In chapter 4, KDM focuses on the rise and influence of primarily three men: (1) Bill Gothard and his organization Institute in Basic Life Principles, (2) Rousas John Rushdoony, who promoted Christian Reconstructionism, and (3) James Dobson, the Christian child psychologist and his organization Focus on the Family. Gothard was influenced by Rushdoony’s Christian Reconstructionism that viewed liberal democracy as a bad thing, and instead said that society should be based on Old Testament law. Rushdoony didn’t believe the Civil War was fought over slavery, but rather was a religious war in which the South was defending Christian civilization. In addition, Christian Reconstructionism indeed insisted on submission to patriarchal authority. It also viewed public schooling as basically satanic indoctrination centers, and instead promoted Christian schools (ones that are based on Old Testament law, that is) or homeschooling. Not surprisingly, Gothard produced homeschooling curriculum. KDM points out that within Gothard’s organization it was discovered that Gothard’s brother had been involved in multiple affairs with secretaries and that Gothard had covered things up.
James Dobson became popular for his books on how to raise children (my parents told me that they took some pointers from Dobson’s books in trying to discipline me as a kid). KDM says that Dobson believed that the breakdown in the family in America was part of a larger breakdown in the social order that included things like the sexual revolution and the rising divorce raise, which led to more single-parent homes. He also spoke about the natural differences between men and women and how generally speaking men and women like different kinds of things. He also said that the source of men’s self-esteem is in feeling respected, while the source of women’s self-esteem is in feeling loved. KDM says that Dobson soon had a “growing empire” that consisted of a “predominately white” audience (white Evangelicals). She also says that both Gothard and Dobson taught that the problems with the modern family “could be traced to the erosion of patriarchal power” (87).
My Reaction to Chapter 4
My reaction to this chapter will not be that long, being that I’m not a fan of Gothard, Rushdoony, or Dobson. It is absolutely true that Gothard was shown to be abusive and domineering. It is absolutely true that Rushdoony and his “Christian Reconstructionism” is shockingly bad. I’ve had a few discussions with a few Rushdoony acolytes, and they flat out scare me. That being said, I’m not so sure either man has been as influential as KDM makes them out to be. Yes, what they’ve taught is bad and destructive, but when, for example, Gothard’s sins came to light, most Evangelicals largely abandoned him. So yes, I would say Gothard and Rushdoony have corrupted the Christian faith, but I don’t think the majority of Evangelicals continue to embrace them.
As for Dobson, the main problem I have with him, as with many Evangelical leaders ever since the 1980s, is that he has become too political. I don’t have any problem with any Christian—Evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, whatever—expressing political opinions in the public sphere and being involved in our democracy, but like I said in my earlier post, a line is crossed when one conflates a particular party’s political platform with the Gospel and the Kingdom of God. Dobson and many other Evangelical leaders clearly are guilty of this.
That being said, that does not mean everything Dobson said about how to raise children and about how to have a solid family is wrong. He’s not wrong to say that there are basic differences between men and women (I’ll expand on that later, because it is an issue that KDM brings up throughout her book), and he’s not wrong when he points out that a number of societal factors have contributed to the breakdown of the family structure, and that in turn affects children. To dismiss that, as KDM seems to do, and accuse Dobson of simply trying to “stop the erosion of patriarchal power” is, quite frankly, mind-numbingly stupid. Speaking as a single-parent who has gone through a divorce, as hard as I try to raise my child in a loving, stable home, I will tell you ten times out of ten that it hurts me to know that he won’t have the benefit of growing up in the same kind of stable, loving two-parent household I had. Advocating for strong, loving two-parent households isn’t “promoting patriarchal power.”
And I would be remiss to point out that, as she does throughout the book, KDM can’t resist injecting race into everything. I don’t care if Dobson’s audience is “predominately white.” It is irrelevant. Either what he teaches is true or not. Either he is right or wrong to have gotten as involved in politics as he has. Like I said, I’m not a fan of Dobson, primarily because I think he has gone way too overboard in his political involvement, but I find throwing comment in like, “Oh, his audience is white!” to be rather problematic race-baiting.
As I hope is coming through in this book analysis isn’t so much my opposition to what KDM’s own political views might be, or how she thinks one’s Christian faith should impact one’s political views. That isn’t the issue. My “fundamental” problem is the way in which she broadbrushes and, quite frankly, purposely mischaracterizes certain people and issues simply because they hold to a political position that is clearly opposite of her view. That is the exact same kind of tactic ultra-fundamentalists like Ken Ham (and people like Gothard, Rushdoony, and Dobson as well) do as well. When you make partisan politics the basis of your supposed Christian faith, you run into trouble. And yes, many of the Evangelicals KDM mentions in her book do just that. Bravo for pointing that out. But don’t turn around and do the exact same thing.
My next post will cover chapters 5-6 of “Jesus and John Wayne.”
