By David Law and Joshua Wu
I
n the last year, there has been a reckoning and (re)examination of gender roles, complementarianism, and the treatment of women within evangelical churches and spaces. With some notable exceptions, these conversations have been led by white evangelicals, centered on the experiences of white evangelicals, and focused on solutions for white evangelicals.
As AAPI Christians, our first response may be a collective shrug; after all, if we’re not part of these conversations, why should we care? But what is being discussed and debated by white evangelicals do, in fact, affect our church culture and faith journeys. For some of us, the effects are immediately obvious. We attend white-majority or white-led churches, and so, these are not distant debates but conversations happening with and relevant to people we sit with in the pews.
But for those of us who attend Asian-majority churches, our theologies, and practices are also significantly shaped by macro trends and transformations in white evangelical spaces. We necessarily and invariably borrow and adapt white evangelical theologies and ideas into our specific AAPI contexts and communities, either directly through denominational directives or indirectly through popular evangelical media.
To that end, we cannot ignore this conversation but must consider how these debates and controversies impact us. While we are all but ignored in this story, we can nonetheless respond to and must engage with these stories and conversations. And so, for the next few weeks, Reclaim will be running articles focused on this conversation. To start our series to move us from the margins into the conversation on gender in the Church, I talked with David Law to discuss his reactions to the New York Times bestseller Jesus and John Wayne by Dr. Kristin Kobes Du Mez. The conversation below is lightly edited for length.
Thank you David for your time today in discussing Jesus and John Wayne (J&JW). For those who may not be familiar with the book, how would you summarize it in a few sentences?
Jesus and John Wayne is a history of the white-majority evangelical movement and its stances towards gender roles, the meshing of militarism into the language of the church, its marriage to Republican/Conservative political ideals, and the power this fusion brought to certain leaders in evangelical circles. It provides a historical roadmap of how we got to 2016 where evangelicals did not simply choose a man like Trump out of last resort, but rather because he was the ideal person to represent the virile, Christian warrior who “fights” for the ideals of Christian nationalism, patriarchy, and cultural dominance.
Why did you pick up this book?
I currently live in the heart of the Bible Belt in Branson, Missouri, a town that is a major tourist destination with the motto “fun, faith, family, and flag. As I originally come from the West Coast via Corvallis, Oregon, this was a particularly sharp culture shock to me when I moved about 10 years ago and this book helped with identifying and portraying what makes this unique Christian movement or subculture tick.
The second, being Asian American, is that I have always felt a sense of unease at the patriarchal, Republican, and white-dominated culture I have seen fostered in the Church. The rise of Donald Trump, and the fervent backing of evangelicals to his movement of white grievance politics, chauvinism, and harsh rhetoric so at odds with so much Christian language and religious teachings as the catalyst to my further exploring of the deep roots of Christian nationalism and the evangelical support for a “John Wayne” type savior. At the time of his rise, I simply could not understand why Donald Trump appealed to so many evangelicals
What was a dominant theme that stuck out to you as you were reading the book?
One theme throughout the book is how so many white evangelicals live in a constant state of fear. A culture of fear stokes that fire to war against the “other.” Fear of outside influences, fear of communism, fear of Muslims, fear of foreign powers, fear of losing influence, and fear of losing their way of life and the culture they hold tightly to.
Fear is a catalyst for the militarized thinking that has dominated evangelical culture. Much of the “us vs. them” mentality is rooted in this mindset of fear. The book points out numerous instances of military terminology and tactics, as well as several individuals themselves, who brought a militaristic mindset into their theology.
You mention that fear leads many Christians to adopt pugilistic and militaristic worldviews. How did that surprise you?
Personally, I did not realize just how much this militarized theology had so easily been integrated into my own faith experience. Having a “warrior” mentality, and how we have to fight for our faith and win the “culture war.” It caused me to examine my own experiences and made me realize just how prevalent this ideology has spread. The book goes into great detail describing why so many men are influenced by this militarized theology.
Some critics of the book claim that Dr. Du Mez is too harsh on Christian men in the book. How did you respond to her analysis of patriarchy, complementarianism, and gender?
It was a “wow” moment for me to read about the dedication and organization to create a Christian patriarchy of so many leaders and culture-shapers in the evangelical world. It was shocking just how prevalent a mindset of male-dominance, not merely complementarianism, but true patriarchy and the debasing and dehumanizing of women that many famous and influential evangelical leaders had and continue to have.
Personally, it is difficult to look at many of the stances and positions I have held in the past and to realize their origins. Some of the men Dr. Du Mez discusses in the book were my heroes, and it was difficult to truly look at their actions today and see just how fallen many of them truly were. It is a rather humbling but necessary examination. No man can replace Christ, no matter how good their theology may appear to be.
It is also most important, particularly in my analysis of gender roles in the church, to realize just how much I had been influenced by very targeted and specific strategies by evangelical leadership. Such a narrow view has influenced not only myself, but millions of both white and non-white Christians into accepting certain beliefs and theologies as facts rather than as preferences and the damage it has caused is incalculable.
Can you discuss an example of beliefs and theologies that you were taught to be facts that should be treated more as preferences?
The chapters on “purity culture” hit particularly hard as I was deeply embedded in that movement for a very long time. Purity culture is not merely a byproduct of Christian sexual ethics, as I believed for most of my life, but an entirely created movement designed around the dominance of Christian patriarchy and the hardening of gender specific roles in marriage and in the church.
Of course purity culture is not a monolith and I was spared some of the more extreme versions of it. But most of that movement was designed with a very specific mindset of gender roles and it is interesting, or perhaps horrifying, to see how much of my mental space was dominated by a very narrow thinking on “purity” and how it pertains to a biblical lifestyle.
It seems that the intentional creation or framing of ideas like purity culture is motivated by power, specifically the desire for some to remain in their positions of power. Where else do you see the desire for power motivating other actions by some Christians?
I think it is evident in the discussion about complementarianism, the idea that only men can be pastors. The fear of a removal of the status quo dominates this conversation. Those that have challenged that orthodoxy or have exposed the cracks in that movement have been ostracized and condemned.
More broadly, this mentality is manifest in evangelical responses to cases of sexual abuse and hypocrisy, from the headline-grabbing escapades of the 80s televangelists to the current #ChurchToo movement. In story after story, leaders in institutional power choose to protect their own movement’s reputation and power over serving people that have been harmed by such evil.
I am both a victim and have loved ones who have been deeply affected by sexual abuse, some within prominent evangelical spaces, and this constant denial to address and cleanse this rot is infuriating. For a movement that claims so passionately to want to protect women’s purity, remove sin from amongst its midst, and to only have those qualified by biblical standards to lead, the compromising of those ideals for the sake of power is one of the most disqualifying things about the movement that I see.
In what ways has this book challenged your views and theology?
Personally, I have mostly always leaned towards a soft complementarianism, or in the book’s term, a “soft patriarchy.” This is how I was raised and influenced in evangelical circles. But now that I know the origins of that philosophy and where it was trying to take the Christian movement, it is hard to reconcile with what I believed to be theology based only on Scripture. If a philosophy leads me to think of women as temptations and objects and my own sexuality to be of a raging unstoppable lust that needs to be contained, perhaps it needs to be thoroughly examined and dissected to get to the root of that sinful thinking.
As an AAPI Christian reading a book about white evangelical culture, what takeaways or insights did you gain in how we can relate and engage the broader evangelical Church?
As an AAPI Christian, it can be tempting to look at the success of white evangelical culture and believe that the way to prosperity lies in emulating their theologies and beliefs. This goes for many aspects of that culture but especially when it comes to gender roles in the church. But we must understand just how much of that belief is rooted in fear of the loss of white male domination. We must be cautious to not allow that unchecked fear to dominate our own theological formation. It is wise to understand the history of such movements before co-opting them into our own communities.
So much of our experience as Asian Americans is the constant struggle to honor our own culture and experiences while being good citizens without losing what makes us unique. It can often be difficult to analyze what we have assimilated and what is unique to our own culture. This book is incredibly valuable in understanding the dominant viewpoints and priorities in white American evangelical culture.
Thank you David for your time today! As we wrap up today, what do you think should be our posture as we consider how we engage with trends and conversations within the broader Church?
We must understand how white American evangelicals have built their own culture to know how it has influenced the AAPI Christian community. Only then can we discern what we truly believe and value, not merely because that is what the dominant culture has taught us to believe. There are always valuable things to gain from studying and adapting the good that evangelicalism has brought. But we must be cautious not to fall into the same traps that have brought fear and hatred into the forefront of the evangelical movement.
Photo by Karsten Winegeart on Unsplash
David is a Pacific Northwest raised Oregon native transplanted into the heart of the Bible Belt in Branson, MO. Lover of dogs, theology and the Portland Trail-Blazers, he has served in ministry for over 14 years and currently is a young-adults leader and tutor for several ministries in Branson, including at his home church of Woodland Hills Family Church. He currently works full time in hospitality and tourism, and loves striking up conversations with tourists from all over the world.
Joshua Wu is a husband, father, pastor's kid, and social scientist seeking to faithfully reflect Christ in all aspects of his life. He has a doctorate in Political Science from The Ohio State University, works in data analytics for a global communications firm, and currently lives in Rochester New York with his family. You can follow him on Twitter @joshswu.