Summary: A look at women in Evangelical Christianity and how they have influenced and been influenced by the culture.
I read Jesus and John Wayne not long after it first came out. And then I read it again with a book club in 2023. The history in Jesus and John Wayne and now in Live Laugh Love is largely familiar to me. I have read the books and known about the people and followed the news and even met a couple of the people who are mentioned.
I think one of the problems that Mark Noll identified in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, and that which I have heard Pete Enns and many other Christian academics expand on, is the problem of the role of intellectualism within Evangelicalism. To tell the story of evangelicalism from a slightly different tack from Du Mez, Neo-evangelicalism’s founders were trying to break away from the fundamentalism’s antagonism toward not only culture, but the tools of the culture. And fundamentalism fought back against evangelicalism with the charge that it was trying to make culture like it and build clout. But over time, those who were fundamentalist in orientation against the broader culture, adopted the evangelical label and many of those who would have been apart of the original neo-evangelical orientation either were pushed out, or left in disgust.
I have seen a number of people dismiss Du Mez broadly over the past week or so with some version of “she is just a marxist.” Early in the book she says, “Ultimately, this book is about power–about women’s power to define their own lives, men’s power over women, and the power women wield over one another. It is about discipleship and devotion, authority and submission, manipulation, cruelty, and control.” (I read a prerelease version provided by Netgalley for purposes of review so I will not give a page number to the quote because my version is likely not paginated as the released version.)
That quote rightly says that she is studying how power impact Christianity. That is not to say that the only thing in the book is power, but to pretend that post-marxian scholars cannot look at power without being “marxist” is like saying that post-Adam Smith economists cannot look at the role of wealth without being capitalists or that biologists can’t look at biological change without being darwinists. Once the a tool has been released into the world, that tool exists and to not use it because of a fear of a label is exactly the type of anti-intellectualism that Noll was rightly concerned about in evangelicalism.







