Fea is manifesting what counselors call "change back" behavior. When a member of a dysfunctional family begins to embrace healthy disciplines and graces, the family will pressure that person to change back. I don't know enough about Fea's social world to make an educated guess about where the pressure to soften his critique of evangelicalism is coming from. But his willingness to throw prominent scholars under the bus is painfully reminiscent of folks in MAGA world bending over backwards to retain the good graces of their Lord and Savior.
After reading The Atlantic piece, I was enraged. It was simply another reason to cover up all of the faults and look at some form of good. Two weeks ago, I was on a small Zoom call with author Amber Cantorna-Wylde. Her father was a right-hand man to Dobson at Focus on the Family for decades... When she realized she was gay in adulthood, her dad gave her an ultimatum to give up on being gay or be cut off from the family... they have not spoken in twelve years - by his choice.
Perhaps Dobson does some good for some people, but so does maximum security prison. This does not mean it is redeemed because of a few good stories.
Kristin, thank you for being a thought leader in America's landscape of those of us still seeking the ways of Jesus. Without voices such as yours, far too many of us would be entirely lost in this forest of grief. I am certainly one of them.
Excellent response, Kristin! I wanted to make this the topic of my SubStack today but felt hesitant. In reading this, I realize that it wasn’t my place to speak for you and Beth. Now that you have weighed in (soundly and fairly), I’ll go ahead with my piece dealing with the Sociological Imagination and C. Wright Mills’ separation of personal troubles and public issues.
Thank you for dealing with Fea so forthrightly, and so gently. I have no idea what's going on, but he's processing some pretty deep stuff. Your commentary re your book, and the books of others, makes clear their purpose. As you say, no one book can say it all; but I think it's singularly unfair of Fee to suggest that your work, and that of others, is flat. No it ain't. It dances with energy, humor, and hope. Dances vibrantly, like David in Jerusalem. Your point about your audience: not the secular world, but evangelicals who buy your book (and Barr's books, too) because they have finally found within in these works a voice for their suspicions re the "story" they've been told forever.
Thanks, Kristin - spot on. Your book and work continue to connect the dots for so many in the faith community and beyond. Grateful for your integrity, humility, and courage.
Hear, hear! As someone who has immense respect for your work and the works of Drs. Barr and Fea, I appreciate your perspective and hope he will reflect on your words and reconsider his critique. From my point of view, you should be on the same team!
Thank you for not letting this slide. It’s the drip, drip, drip of a have-it-both-ways patriarchy that disguises itself as historical critique or whatever resonates with those who just don’t want to deal with the real pain and dysfunction we continue to perpetrate.
Dear Dr. Du Mez, I value your work very much, and keep your book, and works by David Gushee, Robert P. Jones, Katherine Stewart and others close by. Evangelicalism rather mystifies me, and I have come to regard all of you as trustworthy guides through the maze of both its good and harmful aspects. I attended Princeton Seminary in the 90s, where pastoral theologian, Donald Capps, introduced us to the works of Alice Miller, a psychotherapist and advocate for children. Miller was outspoken against the "poisonous pedagogy" of overbearing, punitive parenting that privileged the equanimity and well-being of the parent over the emotional and spiritual needs of the child. Also, its tendency to lay the groundwork for authoritarian political systems, which she examined in detail with Hitler. I don't know how Miller's work is regarded or even noticed today, but I appreciate your connecting George Lakoff's "strict father morality" with the conservative worldviews we're up against in this political moment. I hope that someone with more knowledge and insight than I can bring to light how failure to protect the littlest among us can result down the line in harm to all. Much gratitude to you for the integrity with which you practice your calling.
Fea's assertion that the works were academically superficial may have missed the mark, potentially due to a lack of precision. It appears that the spirit of his critique, as well as the backlash from those it upset, lies in deeper, perhaps unarticulated, concerns.
Your book, while rooted in academic history, transcended its intended scope to become a cultural touchstone during a particularly volatile period in American social life. Its reception went beyond academic circles, resonating with a broader audience in a way that perhaps was not anticipated. For many readers, it offered a framework to reinterpret their social positions and the fabric of their relationships, suggesting an impact far beyond its academic origins.
Nevertheless, it became a phenomenon received primarily by a popular audience. And people tend to remember the chorus they hear on the radio more than the third line of the bridge. And your chorus was that white evangelicals corrupted Christianity. This is where Fea’s critique enter the conversation.
Drawing a parallel, imagine I authored a book suggesting the current administration is complicit in genocide, mirroring the ICJ's view on the Gaza conflict. It became a best-seller and influenced pre-election discussions. It led some readers to believe that supporting the incumbent or not backing his opponent equated to endorsing genocide. When they see their friends and family who are Biden-voters, all they can think about is the conflict’s atrocities. Naturally, many people with this posture outright disassociate with anyone claiming the Biden-voter label. For many: Biden-supporter=irredeemable person complicit in genocide.
Now, let’s say you weigh in. While you see my book as a valid and necessary critique, you're concerned about some of its material impact during this critical moment. You argue that understanding our political landscape requires a nuanced and comprehensive approach: a vote for Biden doesn’t mean you aren’t critical of his policy, his voters shouldn’t be wholesale rejected, and his alternative may be worse! All reasonable points.
I acknowledge your points, but I contend that my work was intended to be a focused argument, not a guide on how to vote. There's ample media support for Biden, offering a different perspective. To others, however, your critique seems to downplay the seriousness of the situation and the need for immediate action against these crimes.
This analogy mirrors the situation with your book and Fea's response. Your academic work sparked a broader debate that, for some observers, solidified a uniformly negative view of evangelicals. Fea might argue that there's more to the evangelical community than this portrayal and that departing from it might not lead to better outcomes for many individuals.
In our social climate, marked by increasing isolation, addiction, and societal issues, evangelical churches often provide essential mediating spaces for social life and character development. I live in the northeast. Successful, professional people can generate and maintain social fabric most of the time. If you are awkward, antisocial, poorly adjusted—there’s really nowhere to turn. Other than addiction groups, evangelical churches have been the only place I’ve regularly seen these types of folks be able just to drop in and tap into social resources.
When individuals come across the orbit Fea is critiquing, it might change how they see their community, leading to feelings of alienation and possibly causing them to leave. The question then becomes, where do they go, and what do they find to replace what was lost?
The responsibility for the overall church exodus largely falls on the church as an institution. However, on the ground level, the impact varies from person to person. In today's world, where social media and cultural conflicts shape our daily interactions, the narratives we absorb can create social barriers, especially if they don't include diverse perspectives.
Consider being part of a small, 50-member evangelical church for a decade (holds to Bebbington’s Quadrilateral). It's 2022, and you've been exposed to a lot of anti-evangelical sentiment, which colors your view of your church. When a typical disagreement arises within your church—a common occurrence in any group—you might view it through the lens of these broader criticisms, seeing the church as contributing to societal divisions and corruption of faith. This perception could make what would normally be a minor conflict seem like a symbol of larger issues, making you more suspicious. If there's no alternative viewpoint presented to you, this suspicion might lead you to leave the church, adopting the broader narrative you've been exposed to as your own.
For argument's sake, let's accept this reaction as understandable. Fea's article then prompts us to consider what comes next. What's the reality of the social landscape once you've distanced yourself from your evangelical community? The options aren't black and white, like choosing between supporting a political candidate and achieving peace in a conflict zone. Leaving your church doesn't necessarily lead you to an ideal community; the reality is often much more complicated and can be quite bleak for many like Fea’s father.
Even if someone would still argue that separation from anyone associated with evangelicalism remains justified, this stance should still be evaluated in the context of a larger, more complex social reality that includes diverse critiques and viewpoints, such as those from JJW and Fea.
PS, I think Bishop’s “Big Sort”, Lilliana Mason’s “Uncivil Agreement”, and Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” are all interesting to consider within the content of the exchange between you and Fea. PSS, I write this as a fan of your voice (and sidebar you commented on a piece I wrote on Twitter once and it is still the highlight of my online writing lol), I write this moreso to advance where I think Fea was trying to be helpful.
So Fea called you "smug" over at RNS. Sounds like Fea has joined the ranks of the "Tone Police" that Sheila Gregorie recently wrote about. (https://baremarriage.com/2024/01/6-reasons-the-tone-policing-argument-against-us-fails/)
I'd call you CONFIDENT--and rightfully so. I'm very grateful for the writings of yourself and Dr. Barr. Thank you.
Fea is manifesting what counselors call "change back" behavior. When a member of a dysfunctional family begins to embrace healthy disciplines and graces, the family will pressure that person to change back. I don't know enough about Fea's social world to make an educated guess about where the pressure to soften his critique of evangelicalism is coming from. But his willingness to throw prominent scholars under the bus is painfully reminiscent of folks in MAGA world bending over backwards to retain the good graces of their Lord and Savior.
After reading The Atlantic piece, I was enraged. It was simply another reason to cover up all of the faults and look at some form of good. Two weeks ago, I was on a small Zoom call with author Amber Cantorna-Wylde. Her father was a right-hand man to Dobson at Focus on the Family for decades... When she realized she was gay in adulthood, her dad gave her an ultimatum to give up on being gay or be cut off from the family... they have not spoken in twelve years - by his choice.
Perhaps Dobson does some good for some people, but so does maximum security prison. This does not mean it is redeemed because of a few good stories.
Kristin, thank you for being a thought leader in America's landscape of those of us still seeking the ways of Jesus. Without voices such as yours, far too many of us would be entirely lost in this forest of grief. I am certainly one of them.
Excellent response, Kristin! I wanted to make this the topic of my SubStack today but felt hesitant. In reading this, I realize that it wasn’t my place to speak for you and Beth. Now that you have weighed in (soundly and fairly), I’ll go ahead with my piece dealing with the Sociological Imagination and C. Wright Mills’ separation of personal troubles and public issues.
Thank you for dealing with Fea so forthrightly, and so gently. I have no idea what's going on, but he's processing some pretty deep stuff. Your commentary re your book, and the books of others, makes clear their purpose. As you say, no one book can say it all; but I think it's singularly unfair of Fee to suggest that your work, and that of others, is flat. No it ain't. It dances with energy, humor, and hope. Dances vibrantly, like David in Jerusalem. Your point about your audience: not the secular world, but evangelicals who buy your book (and Barr's books, too) because they have finally found within in these works a voice for their suspicions re the "story" they've been told forever.
Thanks for writing this Kristen. I too was bewildered by Fea's piece in The Atlantic. Curious to know what's going on behind and around it.
Thanks, Kristin - spot on. Your book and work continue to connect the dots for so many in the faith community and beyond. Grateful for your integrity, humility, and courage.
Hear, hear! As someone who has immense respect for your work and the works of Drs. Barr and Fea, I appreciate your perspective and hope he will reflect on your words and reconsider his critique. From my point of view, you should be on the same team!
Thank you for not letting this slide. It’s the drip, drip, drip of a have-it-both-ways patriarchy that disguises itself as historical critique or whatever resonates with those who just don’t want to deal with the real pain and dysfunction we continue to perpetrate.
Dear Dr. Du Mez, I value your work very much, and keep your book, and works by David Gushee, Robert P. Jones, Katherine Stewart and others close by. Evangelicalism rather mystifies me, and I have come to regard all of you as trustworthy guides through the maze of both its good and harmful aspects. I attended Princeton Seminary in the 90s, where pastoral theologian, Donald Capps, introduced us to the works of Alice Miller, a psychotherapist and advocate for children. Miller was outspoken against the "poisonous pedagogy" of overbearing, punitive parenting that privileged the equanimity and well-being of the parent over the emotional and spiritual needs of the child. Also, its tendency to lay the groundwork for authoritarian political systems, which she examined in detail with Hitler. I don't know how Miller's work is regarded or even noticed today, but I appreciate your connecting George Lakoff's "strict father morality" with the conservative worldviews we're up against in this political moment. I hope that someone with more knowledge and insight than I can bring to light how failure to protect the littlest among us can result down the line in harm to all. Much gratitude to you for the integrity with which you practice your calling.
Let's grapple with how all of these stories co-exist. Absolutely yes, profoundly true.
I appreciate your honesty and your work
Excellent Kristin!
Thank you Jemar! I’m so grateful for you, friend.
Yes and Amen from someone who self identifies as a white, heteronormative, male evangelical, along with a shout out to Jemar
Fea's assertion that the works were academically superficial may have missed the mark, potentially due to a lack of precision. It appears that the spirit of his critique, as well as the backlash from those it upset, lies in deeper, perhaps unarticulated, concerns.
Your book, while rooted in academic history, transcended its intended scope to become a cultural touchstone during a particularly volatile period in American social life. Its reception went beyond academic circles, resonating with a broader audience in a way that perhaps was not anticipated. For many readers, it offered a framework to reinterpret their social positions and the fabric of their relationships, suggesting an impact far beyond its academic origins.
Nevertheless, it became a phenomenon received primarily by a popular audience. And people tend to remember the chorus they hear on the radio more than the third line of the bridge. And your chorus was that white evangelicals corrupted Christianity. This is where Fea’s critique enter the conversation.
Drawing a parallel, imagine I authored a book suggesting the current administration is complicit in genocide, mirroring the ICJ's view on the Gaza conflict. It became a best-seller and influenced pre-election discussions. It led some readers to believe that supporting the incumbent or not backing his opponent equated to endorsing genocide. When they see their friends and family who are Biden-voters, all they can think about is the conflict’s atrocities. Naturally, many people with this posture outright disassociate with anyone claiming the Biden-voter label. For many: Biden-supporter=irredeemable person complicit in genocide.
Now, let’s say you weigh in. While you see my book as a valid and necessary critique, you're concerned about some of its material impact during this critical moment. You argue that understanding our political landscape requires a nuanced and comprehensive approach: a vote for Biden doesn’t mean you aren’t critical of his policy, his voters shouldn’t be wholesale rejected, and his alternative may be worse! All reasonable points.
I acknowledge your points, but I contend that my work was intended to be a focused argument, not a guide on how to vote. There's ample media support for Biden, offering a different perspective. To others, however, your critique seems to downplay the seriousness of the situation and the need for immediate action against these crimes.
This analogy mirrors the situation with your book and Fea's response. Your academic work sparked a broader debate that, for some observers, solidified a uniformly negative view of evangelicals. Fea might argue that there's more to the evangelical community than this portrayal and that departing from it might not lead to better outcomes for many individuals.
In our social climate, marked by increasing isolation, addiction, and societal issues, evangelical churches often provide essential mediating spaces for social life and character development. I live in the northeast. Successful, professional people can generate and maintain social fabric most of the time. If you are awkward, antisocial, poorly adjusted—there’s really nowhere to turn. Other than addiction groups, evangelical churches have been the only place I’ve regularly seen these types of folks be able just to drop in and tap into social resources.
When individuals come across the orbit Fea is critiquing, it might change how they see their community, leading to feelings of alienation and possibly causing them to leave. The question then becomes, where do they go, and what do they find to replace what was lost?
The responsibility for the overall church exodus largely falls on the church as an institution. However, on the ground level, the impact varies from person to person. In today's world, where social media and cultural conflicts shape our daily interactions, the narratives we absorb can create social barriers, especially if they don't include diverse perspectives.
Consider being part of a small, 50-member evangelical church for a decade (holds to Bebbington’s Quadrilateral). It's 2022, and you've been exposed to a lot of anti-evangelical sentiment, which colors your view of your church. When a typical disagreement arises within your church—a common occurrence in any group—you might view it through the lens of these broader criticisms, seeing the church as contributing to societal divisions and corruption of faith. This perception could make what would normally be a minor conflict seem like a symbol of larger issues, making you more suspicious. If there's no alternative viewpoint presented to you, this suspicion might lead you to leave the church, adopting the broader narrative you've been exposed to as your own.
For argument's sake, let's accept this reaction as understandable. Fea's article then prompts us to consider what comes next. What's the reality of the social landscape once you've distanced yourself from your evangelical community? The options aren't black and white, like choosing between supporting a political candidate and achieving peace in a conflict zone. Leaving your church doesn't necessarily lead you to an ideal community; the reality is often much more complicated and can be quite bleak for many like Fea’s father.
Even if someone would still argue that separation from anyone associated with evangelicalism remains justified, this stance should still be evaluated in the context of a larger, more complex social reality that includes diverse critiques and viewpoints, such as those from JJW and Fea.
PS, I think Bishop’s “Big Sort”, Lilliana Mason’s “Uncivil Agreement”, and Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” are all interesting to consider within the content of the exchange between you and Fea. PSS, I write this as a fan of your voice (and sidebar you commented on a piece I wrote on Twitter once and it is still the highlight of my online writing lol), I write this moreso to advance where I think Fea was trying to be helpful.