Bless us all God, for much has happened!
Verily, it has been about 6 months since my last Substack post…
(Although I’m not a Roman Catholic, this is indeed a variation of the Sign of the Cross! 😉)
After publishing ‘Howdy? A Discourse on Etymology, Identity, Reality, and Essaying’ in June, and after publishing ‘I’m Church of Christ Too’ in July, I meant to publish a Substack post featuring constructive criticism for my particular Christian background— including an account of internal conflict within Churches of Christ concerning how to view history. But this project has snowballed into an avalanche of words, and I still keep rethinking how to organize my thoughts.
Here’s a taste of this project. I may be inclined to agree with Mr. Matt Dabbs (Backyard Church) when he suggests that “It is hard to generalize Churches of Christ”, but I strongly suspect that Dr. John Mark Hicks (Lipscomb University) speaks truth when he submits that “Churches of Christ are at a hermeneutical crossroads.” Further, I think Dr. Richard Beck (Highland Church of Christ) speaks truth when he proposes that “There are ecumenical Churches of Christ and there are sectarian Churches of Christ.” Alternatively, we might say Churches of Christ can choose to be more inclusive or more exclusive. Though it has taken many years of questioning and study, my curiosity has led me to become quite convinced that the Sectarian-minded Churches of Christ (attitudinal spaces which I’ve predominately experienced since I was born) cannot account for their emergence in history nearly as well as the Ecumenical-minded Churches of Christ— that ‘Inclusive’ Churches of Christ are attuned to a more cognitively consonant and circumspect perception of reality than ‘Exclusive’ Churches of Christ. Though I am not the first person to express frustration with ‘Exclusive’ Churches of Christ, I cannot ‘sit idly by’— I have touched on such themes in previous Wordpress posts, and I must improve upon them. I am among those who are constant works-in-progress when it comes to analyzing (or deconstructing) and synthesizing (or reconstructing) what it might mean to be ‘Christ-like’. And how Christ-like or Christian am I, really? I am not alone, even if I may sometimes feel that way. And if this project is therapeutic for my ‘inner child’, then I hope that this project may be therapeutic for my neighbors in life too.
Apart from revising this project, I had been quite preoccupied with completing another semester of intense reading and writing assignments. (For those of you who may not know, I’m pursuing a Classical Studies M.A. through Villanova University.) Further, I’ve been delighting in the company of my most excellent girlfriend Catlin Walton— who even moved from Pennsylvania to Arkansas so we could be closer! Moreover, I’ve been trying to evaluate what I should pursue in terms of short term jobs and a long term career.
Life, therefore, has been like a roller coaster as of late!
Insofar as my attention has been so widely distributed as of late, I’m reminded of this rotating image— which yet again influences me to recall the word ‘circumspect’.
I am unsure if it is meant to portray three conjoined thinkers or one thinker, but I think that revolving image invites us to consider some scene wherein an agent who is capable of eyesight observes surroundings. Whether we imagine some person looking to one’s left and right before walking across a busy street, whether we recall the fast-paced and complex decision-making processes involved in driving a car, or whether we consider some similar scenario, such an agent who wants to move about with safety, integrity, humility, and curiosity is likely to cross-check several directions on a continual and perpetual basis.
Here, Merriam-Webster would be quick to remind us that the word ‘circumspect’ functions as an adjective— it would encourage us to envision what it means to be “careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences”. Here, too, the free Online Etymology Dictionary would propose that we inherit ‘circumspect’ from the merging of ‘specere’ and ‘circum’—where the former word has meant “to look” and where the latter word has meant “around”. Further still, as the screenshot below shows, the Oxford English Dictionary would echo such etymological assumptions:
Although I often wish I could be omniscient, I suppose I will have to settle for selectively perceiving the world(s) within which I exist— and I crave to be as circumspect as I can possibly become.
In this new year, I would like to begin sharing more bookish reflections. I will have to combat my maladaptive perfectionism more often, but maybe I will become more efficient in challenging myself?
So, with some Bardcore playing (for instance: Hildegard von Blingin’s “We Didn't Start the Fire”), let’s go ahead and delve into Dr. Kristin Kobes Du Mez’s “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation” (May 19th, 2020). Since I have read and heard a lot of discourse surrounding this book, I think it would be awesome to contemplate it more directly.
We could spend a great deal of time trying to unpack Dr. Kristin’s background and insights, but I will limit myself to sharing two resources for now. Initially, I’ll suggest this video wherein Rev. Paul Vander Klay interviewed Dr. Kristin (August 5th, 2020)— I’d recommend listening to this at 1.5x speed, and I think Dr. Kristin offered wonderful responses to Rev. Paul’s questions about her religious-political background and to various (sometimes quite pointed) critiques about her book’s subtitle as well as about other themes in her book. Additionally, I’ll suggest this four-part series from Mr. Phil Vischer’s Holy Post podcast— in part 1 (6.25.21), part 2 (7.2.21), part 3 (7.9.21), and part 4 (7.16.21), Skye Jethani excellently interviews Dr. Kristin in depth about her book and how it related to religious-political events in 2021. In short, the former resource is scholar-focused whereas the latter resource is book-focused.
As we’re beginning to contemplate Dr. Kristin’s “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation”, I am compelled to ask several questions about this combination of title and subtitle.
1. How might Jesus and John Wayne compare and contrast?
2. What does Dr. Kristin mean by ‘white evangelicals’?
3. If she is suggesting that it can be corrupted, how might Dr. Kristin define a Christian faith— if at all? (Is it even possible to define Christianity?)
4. If she is saying that it can be fractured, how would Dr. Kristin define the United States of America? (Has the United States of America ever been united?)
In her Preface (Pgs. xiii-xix), Dr. Mez seems to treat ‘militancy’ as a key word insofar as it appears to be used 4 times. Likewise, ‘militant’ seems to be used twice. Similarly, terms such as ‘militarism’ and ‘militaristic’ seem to be used once. Consider the following examples.
“As I watched white evangelicals embrace the [Iraq] war with unparalleled zeal, I began to wonder how the militant ideals of Christian manhood that pervaded evangelical popular culture might contribute to evangelical militarism on the global stage. I soon came to see that a Christian warrior ideal fueled culture war politics on the home front, too.” (Mez xiii-xiv)
“History makes clear that this should come as no surprise. Evangelical support for Trump was no aberration. For many white evangelicals, the values Trump embodied aligned with the militancy at the heart of their faith.” (Mez xvii)
“If history teaches us anything, it is that militant white evangelicalism thrives on a sense of embattlement. […] But history also teaches us that nothing is inevitable. […] If this healing and restoration is to take place, the militancy at the heart of conservative white evangelicalism must be confronted.” (Mez xviii-xix)
Let’s take a moment to think, shall we? 🤔
Today is a Monday (or Moon Day)— and it is also the 6th day of January in this new year of 2025. Today, Latin Rite Catholics are likely contemplating the Epiphany— a Christmas-related feast day where such Christians intend to commemorate the scenes depicted in Matthew 2:1-12 (wherein the 3 Magi travel to visit the baby Jesus). Today, I am again trying to process whatever happened at the U.S. Capitol during January 6th of 2021. Folks like Steven Calabresi, Conn Carroll, and Barton Swaim (as well as organizations like American Oversight) would describe that event as a ‘riot’— and each of these sources have varying views of Mr. Trump’s involvement. By contrast, folks like Eric Sammons say that it was in fact an ‘insurrection’— but that ‘the Left’ are actually responsible whereas ‘the Right’ are actually innocent. Further, there are panelists from Brookings, American Progress, and PBS who describe that event as a ‘riot’ as well as an ‘insurrection’— and who also think Mr. Trump and Trump supporters (on ‘the Right’ or, as I’ve heard some folks say, ‘the Alt-Right’) are actually responsible. At any rate, it seems that we Americans do not agree about who was responsible for that event or how to label that event— and that is so sad to me. (To be clear: I have never voted for Mr. Trump, and I am among those who think that he is a bully who is not fit to be a leader.) To bring things full circle: in that ‘Epiphany’ is a word which has meant ‘to show’ or ‘to shine on’, there is perhaps a sense in which January 6th of 2021 was an epiphany and in which today is also an epiphany. For this moment, Tia Pelz’s words seem fitting— “Epiphanies don’t create new realities. They just show them. And maybe, just maybe, people get it and it changes our lives forever. Which might create a new reality. But that’s up to us.” With whatever free will we have, are we up for the monumental-yet-minute task of listening to each other, learning from each other, and loving each other?
While we may not find anything in Dr. Kristin’s Preface about how Jesus and John Wayne might compare or contrast, and while we may not find anything therein about who exactly ‘white evangelicals’ may be, we do find Dr. Kristin proposing that evangelicals have welcomed war (such as the Iraq War). And if we expand our scope to consider the whole Preface, we will find Dr. Kristin essentially suggesting that we should beware of equating Christianity with the faiths of the Duck Dynasty clan (Pg. xiv), Mark Driscoll (Pg. xiv; 1970-present), Eric Metaxas (Pg. xvi; 1963-present), Jerry Falwell Jr. (Pg. xvi; 1962-present), John Eldredge (Pg. xiii; 1960-present), Donald Trump (Pg. xiv; 1946-present), General George Patton (Pg. xvi; 1885-1945), Theodore Roosevelt (Pg. xviii; 1858-1919), Buffalo Bill Cody (Pg. xvi; 1846-1917), as well as Andrew Jackson (Pg. xvi; 1767-1845). But though she doesn’t use those aforementioned quotes to define the Christian faith or the United States of America, we do find Dr. Kristin suggesting that we should not equate Christianity with militarism. Hence, we end up getting the sense that she thinks Christianity is something other than evangelical-approved militarism, muscular “masculinity” (Pg. xiii), and misogyny (Pg. xiv). But is Dr. Kristin correct to suggest that Christianity is more than evangelicalism— with, for instance, the idealization and romanticization of war? And if she is correct to suppose that evangelicals have thus supported “confusion” and “perplexity”, is Dr. Kristin correct to think that healing is possible? If so, how?
In the big scheme of things, maybe you and I might agree that ‘the personal is political’ and that ‘the political is personal’. Maybe you and I might agree that quarks matter just as much as quasars. Maybe you and I might also join Cameron Harwick in speculating that “morality is fractal”. If you and I might agree on any of those points, then—metaphorically speaking—we might also agree that ‘God’ and/or ‘the Devil’ are in the details. Plus: if Arthur Clarke was onto something true when he suggested that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”, and if Dr. Toshihiko Izutzu was onto something true when he suggested that “our century […] suffers more grievously than any past age from the ravages of verbal magic” (Language and Magic; Ch. 1, Pg. 19), then perhaps you and I might—in some sense—agree that we are wizards and witches who are able to wield word-spells which can function as powerful tools for winsome wonder or as weapons for wrathful woe. If we are in any way impacted by words, music, food, work places, religious spaces, or by any amount of external and internal stimuli, then should we not try to become as aware as we can about how our environment affects us and about how we affect our environment? Should we not become more circumspect?
1/9/24 Addendum: After I finished writing this post, I learned that Dr. David Dark (who also has CoC origins) was thinking about ‘Circling Back’— which, incidentally, seems to fit well with ‘circumspection’. Further, I eventually noticed that Rev. Paul Vander Klay did a video called ‘The Theological Splinter in Your Mind: Obsessio and Epiphania. Richard Beck and Skojec’— which, in turn, has to do with Dr. Richard Beck’s series on Theological Worlds (see Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). These media seem to fit well with ‘epiphany’. (Oh, and I also just learned that Dr. Don Morrow from FCC Bentonville has plans to do a sermon soon surrounding Dr. Mez’s ‘Jesus and John Wayne’.) Anyway, I’m excited that all of us are more-or-less thinking about similar things!
P.S. Thank you for being you and thank you for reading! ♾️ 😎 🖖🏻 🙏🏻 ♾️
P.P.S. I’d love to connect— here is my LinkTree!