Jesus and John Wayne with Kristin Kobes du Mez

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jon Guerra (00:07):
I have a heart full of questions quieting all my
suggestions.
What is the meaning of Christianin this American life?
I'm feeling awfully foolishspending my life on a message.
I look around and I wonder everif I heard it right.

Amy Mantravadi (00:28):
Welcome to the (A)Millennial podcast, where we
have theological conversationsfor today's world.
I'm your host, Amy Mantravadi,coming to you live from Dayton,
Ohio, hometown of Ramon AntonioGerard Estevez, better known as
Martin Sheen.
Today's episode has John Waynein the title, and Martin Sheen

(00:48):
is something of an anti-JohnWayne.
He is best known for starring asa disillusioned U.S.
soldier and a Democraticpresident.
Nevertheless, we're happy toclaim him.
He is an honorary trustee of theDayton International Peace
Museum and received an honorarydoctorate from the University of
Dayton in 2015, despite the factthat he deliberately failed his

(01:08):
entrance exam for that sameuniversity so he could pursue an
acting career instead.
Kids, this just proves that youshouldn't waste your time on
school.
I want to say a brief wordbefore we move on to today's
interview.
I will be speaking with KristinKobes du Mez, author of the
recent book Jesus and JohnWayne.
In it, she argues thatwidespread evangelical support

(01:30):
for Donald Trump is part of apattern rather than an
aberration.
Many evangelical Christiansvoted for Trump, she suggests,
not in spite of his words andbehavior, but because of it.
Most of them were not holdingtheir nose when they marked
their ballots, but doing so inthe belief that it was a morally
good choice for a man favored byGod, even if he did have a few
flaws.

(01:51):
To make her case, she performsan overview of American
evangelicalism from the mid-20thcentury to the present and shows
how evangelicals have beenrepeatedly attracted to a
certain kind of manhood that isstrong, combative and
overwhelmingly white.
Perhaps most controversially,she argues that evangelicals are
bound together not so much byany theological beliefs, but

(02:13):
rather a common culture that canbe found in magazines, music,
blogs, and home decor.
It is promoted by massiveparachurch ministries that in
many cases have surpassed theinfluence and authority of the
local church and has sidelinedother theological debates in the
common goal of preservingpatriarchal rule in the home,
the Church and society.

(02:33):
Among the Christian leaders shediscusses are earlier figures
like Billy Graham, Bill Gothard,Phyllis Schlafly, and James
Dobson, in addition to thosemore active today, such as
Douglas Wilson, John Piper,Wayne Grudem, Mark Driscoll, and
Eric Metaxas.
Her characterizations of theseleaders and conclusions about
the evangelical movement aresure to upset many who hold

(02:56):
these things dear, but I mustsay that much of what she has to
say matches my own experiencewriting for and conversing with
those in the evangelical andReformed world.
I was therefore grieved by thebook, not because I believed it
to be an unfair attack, butbecause I found it to be both
correct and prophetic.
This history of a certain strandof Christianity calls us to
consider where we have erred andreturn to the pure message of

(03:19):
the gospel.
During the financial crisis of2008 to 2009, a popular phrase
was coined.
Certain financial institutionswere said to be"too big to
fail," meaning that if theycould no longer meet their
obligations, the damage to theglobal economy would be so
catastrophic that it would bebetter to bail the failing
company out, despite thetremendous cost to the average

(03:41):
taxpayer.
I think sometimes we treatcertain beloved evangelical
institutions and leaders in asimilar manner.
We either believe they are tooholy to err, or we think them
too important to the spread ofthe gospel to be destroyed.
And so we keep silent about theproblems in the church, and as
was the case in the 2008 to 2009financial crisis, the average

(04:01):
person is forced to bear thecost while those at the top face
few negative consequences fortheir actions.
This is where we must remembertwo things.
First, it is Jesus Christ whoupholds his Church and the
Spirit of God who draws ourhearts to the gospel and
salvation.
Second, no person or institutionis too big to fail at keeping
God's commands.

(04:22):
We've seen it happen so manytimes that there is no excuse
for persisting in the beliefthat they cannot fail.
Therefore, let us holdeverything up to the light of
God to expose the darknesswithin our own hearts.
If we treasure sacred cows, theLord will one day cause us to
taste the bitterness of ouridolatry.
As John Calvin wrote, the heartis a factory of idols, and it is

(04:44):
time to shut the factory down.
There are so many biblicalpassages relevant to today's
discussion, but I want to focuson one from Peter's first
epistle.
In it, he writes the followingto a group of Christians who
were undergoing a period oftrial and calls for them to
purify themselves and engage ina righteous manner.
"Beloved, do not be surprised atthe fiery ordeal among you,

(05:07):
which comes upon you for yourtesting, as though something
strange were happening to you.
But to the degree that you sharethe sufferings of Christ, keep
on rejoicing, so that at therevelation of his glory, you may
also rejoice and be overjoyed.
If you were insulted for thename of Christ, you are blessed
because the spirit of glory andof God rests upon you.

(05:27):
Make sure that none of yousuffers as a murderer or thief
or evildoer or a troublesomemeddler, but if anyone suffers
as a Christian, he is not to beashamed, but is to glorify God
in this name.
For it is time for judgment tobegin with the household of God,
and if it begins with us first,what will be the outcome for
those who do not obey the gospelof God?

(05:48):
And if it is with difficultythat the righteous is saved,
what will become of the godlessman and the sinner?
Therefore, those also who sufferaccording to the will of God are
to entrust their souls to afaithful creator in doing what
is right." That was First Peterchapter four, verses 12 through
19.
Thanks be to God for his Word tous.
Let's head to the interview.

Jon Guerra (06:11):
[MUSIC PLAYS]

And I'm here with Dr.
Kristin Kobes du Mez.
She received her bachelor'sdegree from Dordt College and
her PhD from the University ofNotre Dame.
She's written for the WashingtonPost, NBC News, Religion News
Service, Christianity Today, andChristian Century.
She's currently the professor ofhistory and gender studies at
Calvin University, and herpublished works include"A New

Gospel for Women (06:44):
Catherine Bushnell and the Challenge of
Christian Feminism" and"Jesusand John Wayne: How White
Evangelicals Corrupted a Faithand Fractured a Nation, which is
the book we're going to talkabout today.
And you can find her on Twitterand Facebook@kkdumez that's
K-K-D-U-M-E-Z.
Well, Kristin, thank you so muchfor joining me today.

Kristin Kobes du Mez (07:05):
Thanks for having me.

Now, I wanted to start out with something a
little lighthearted, so I wantedto play a game of"How Dutch Are
You?" Knowing that you're thereat Calvin University in West
Michigan- I grew up in WestMichigan.
I am one quarter Dutch myself,so I know that everybody who

(07:28):
lives in West Michigan either isDutch or has to hear from
annoying Dutch people all thetime.
Ok, are you ready to play thegame?

I am.
I am clearly going to win thisone.

All right.
So first question, if you aren'tDutch, what are you?

Not much.

Okay.
Ding, ding, ding! That'scorrect.
Have you ever grown tulips?

(07:52):
Of course.
I grew my own tulips for mywedding even, so yeah.

Wow.
That's gotta be like two correctanswers there.
Have you ever visited Dutchvillage recently?

Yes, recently.

Okay.
Well that's good.
So then this is likely to becorrect as well.
Have you ever tried on a pair ofwooden shoes?

I own a pair of wooden shoes.

Oh my goodness! Wow.
You are really Dutch.
Finish this phrase:"If you can'tgo to Calvin..."

(08:25):
See, this is the problem.
I don't know this one becauseI'm not West Michigan Dutch
originally, so I'm going to losethis one.
Well, and you know, maybe it wasjust my part of West Michigan,
but I think- my dad's a Calvingrad and I think he's told me
the phrase is,"If you can't goto Calvin, there's still Hope."

(08:45):
Oh, okay.
Yeah, and I'm not part of thatrivalry.
I'm an Iowan.

Hope College, yes.
Have you ever consumed Voortmancookies?

Yeah.

All right.
There we go.
Do you know the differencebetween a Dutch person and a
canoe?

No.

Well, the answer is that the canoe tips and the
Dutch person does not.
That was another one I heardgrowing up.
I take no credit for creatingit.
Do you have a pair of kissingDutch children or a windmill as
part of your landscaping?

Not as part of my landscaping, but I'm
an outlier in my family, Ithink, and my extended families.
Yes.
I'm falling short.

All right.
Have you ever eaten at Russ'Restaurant?
Alternatively, I will acceptWindmill Restaurant.

Of course.
Yes.
The strawberry tarts are thespecialty as far as my family is
concerned.

Very good, very good.
And last question, have you everplayed Dutch Blitz?

I have not.
Again, I'm from a littledifferent quarter, I'm afraid.

Well, I've got to be honest.
I grew up in West Michigan, andI haven't played Dutch Blitz
either.
So I think that was pretty good.
I think I'll give you at least a"Mostly Dutch" rating.

Yeah, mostly.
I've definitely Dutch.
My mom actually immigrated fromthe Netherlands, so I think I
come by it a little toohonestly, but I moved to West
Michigan 16 years ago, but ifyou know West Michigan, as you
do, you're always an outsider.
So I never really feel like aWest Michigan Dutch person.
I'm an Iowa transplant, and Ithink I always will be.

Well, very much understood.
It was my great-grandparentsthat came over from the
Netherlands, and if you knowCalvary Church there in Grand
Rapids, they were foundingmembers of Calvary Church.
So my parents both grew up inGrand Rapids, but I actually
grew up in Muskegon, so I almostwas a little bit of an outsider
as well.

Yeah, that's outside.

All right.
Well, turning from that verylighthearted game to the much
more serious content of yourbook, I wanted to just begin the
interview by reviewing a littlebit of recent history that
probably everyone's going to beaware of, but it still bears
some repeating.
On January 6th of this year,supporters of Donald Trump held
a rally in Washington, DC titled"Save America." The speakers

(11:21):
that day, including thepresident himself, repeated
false claims that PresidentTrump had won the 2020 election.
There were calls to march onCongress and have trial by
combat to save the country.
Thousands of people then marchedthe U.S.
Capitol and engaged in numerousacts of violence, in many cases
forcing their way into thebuilding and possibly also being
let in by officers sympatheticto their cause.

(11:42):
Once in the building, they weresuccessful in entering the
Senate chamber, where they heldan impromptu prayer meeting, and
the offices of Democraticlawmakers.
They destroyed governmentproperty, attacked police
officers, and hurled racistslurs at black members of the
Capitol Hill police force.
Five people died as a result ofthe violence, but what was
perhaps most disturbing aboutthe whole thing was the symbols

(12:05):
on display.
Protestors proudly displayedtheir white supremacist beliefs.
A gallows and noose was erectedoutside the Capitol, one man
paraded a Confederate flagthrough the Capitol while
another wore a t-shirt labeled"Camp Auschwitz", and amid all
these were signs that read"JesusSaves" and other Christian
slogans.
Some protestors kneeled to praybefore storming the Capitol and

(12:27):
many believed they were carryingout the will of God.
President Trump was immediatelyfaulted by many for inciting
insurrection, and a week laterhe was impeached by the House of
Representatives.
He currently awaits trial in theU.S.
Senate.
Even many Republican lawmakershave faulted President Trump for
providing fuel to a movementthat was known to be extreme and
had the potential for violence.
But it was very interesting tosee how some of the president's

(12:49):
most prominent evangelicalsupporters responded.
Eric Metaxas tweeted the day ofthe riot,"There is no doubt the
election was fraudulent.
That is the same today asyesterday.
There is no doubt Antifa haveinfiltrated the protesters today
and planned this.
This is political theater andanyone who buys it is a sucker.
Fight for justice and pray forjustice.
God bless America." On Facebook,Franklin Graham compared the ten

(13:12):
Republican House members whovoted in favor of impeachment to
Judas Iscariot.
Al Mohler in an interview withThe Houston Chronicle condemned
the violence and faultedPresident Trump for inciting it,
but said he did not regret hissupport for Trump and seemed to
suggest that he couldn't havepredicted the turn of events.
He said,"But what we have seenis the true character of Donald
Trump come out in a way that Ido not find that- I don't accept

(13:36):
was merely inevitable." That's alot of background before getting
to a question, but I mentionedit all because it demonstrates
what I feel is the strongestevidence to date of your
assessment of Christiannationalist tendencies within
American evangelicalism isabsolutely correct.
How did you personally feelwitnessing these events in the

(13:57):
past month and what did theyreveal about the state of
evangelicalism in America?

Yeah, so I've been researching the topic
of white evangelical masculinityand militarism, and violence is
a subtext of that rhetoricalviolence, actual violence in
terms of foreign policy, kind ofculture wars militancy for years
now, and so I've always reallyhad the potential for this kind
of violence on my radar.

(14:23):
So on January 6, especially theway the rhetoric was really
amping up since the election, Iwas not all that surprised to be
honest.
That said, I mean, you listedmany examples of the Christian
symbolism on display.
In addition, we had the ProudBoys kneeling in prayer, and if
you hear that video of theprayer, it's a very

(14:46):
quintessentially evangelicalprayer that they're offering.
So I think the real question is,you know, what are we looking
at?
Are we looking at extremistfringe?
Are we looking at something muchcloser to the mainstream?
And how we answer that questionis probably going to have a
pretty big effect on what we'regoing to see, or how that
question answers itself and whatwe're going to see in the next

(15:08):
four years or even the next fourmonths.
But that was actually a centralproject or problem of my book:
When am I looking at somethingthat is really fringe?
And when is, when am I lookingat something that really is
mainstream?
And extremist rhetoric didn'tnecessarily mean as I found
through my research that itneeded to be located at the
fringe, so I kept trying totease out what elements of the

(15:32):
undeniable kind of mainstreamwhite evangelicalism are in
accord with the more extremistrhetoric, with even the more
extremist actions.
And when I looked at what washappening on January 6th, and
then I looked very closely,following on Facebook, listening
to people, asking people I knew,"What were you hearing in

(15:53):
different evangelical circles?"It honestly wasn't very
encouraging.
Many people might very brieflysay, you know,"I denounce
violence, but..." And then therewas a lot that came after that.
And not everybody even denouncedit.
There was a lot of,"Well, whatdo you expect?
Push people so far..." There wasa lot of, as you suggest,
blaming Antifa, denyingculpability, and there was a lot

(16:16):
of continuing rhetoric of prayfor strength, for courage-
language of kind of revolutionand needing to stand up for what
was right.
So, I mean, it still is an openquestion to me, but what I do
know is that the history thatI've researched demonstrates
that for generations now,conservative evangelicals have

(16:37):
been embracing militant rhetoricand militarism.
They have been condoningviolence for the sake of
bringing order if that violenceis wielded by somebody that they
deem is righteous or appointedby God.
And they have really fostered anus versus them mentality-
cultivated that and promotedthat.

(16:58):
And when you put those piecestogether, it makes it- we saw on
January 6, certainly not beyondthe pale.
And it makes me worry about theability for evangelicals to
strongly denounce and- not justdenounce it, but strongly resist
this drift towards domesticviolence, drift towards even

(17:20):
authoritarianism- that they maynot be equipped to really do
what needs to be done on thatfront.
That said, then part of me goesback to, you know, there's a big
difference between using thisrhetoric- or there can be, and
not always, but there can be abig difference between embracing
this sort of militant,militaristic rhetoric, holding
up this ideal of violence forthe sake of good, and then

(17:41):
actually carrying through withit.
So to me that remains an openquestion, yet what we saw on
January 6 was not terriblysurprising, and I really can't
tell the future.
I can't tell where things aregoing to go, but I think there
are deep divisions right nowwithin white evangelicalism
around precisely thesequestions.

And, you know, it's interesting you talking
about how do we know whether[it]represents the extreme or the
mainstream and the diverseanalyses we've seen of this
event certainly indicate thatpeople are not in any way united
on the answer to that question,and how they feel about that

(18:21):
tends to be determined a lot bywhere they stand.
If they stand in a certainpolitical spot, they're more
likely to see what happened onJanuary 6 as a few extreme
people taking advantage of amovement.
If they are in another place,they're likely to paint everyone
who voted for Trump with thesame brush.

(18:41):
So I agree that for you as ahistorian, that's a really
thorny problem to try to sortout.
And I appreciate you attemptingto do that in your book, but
such a big question.
It's almost more about startinga discussion than being able to
finish it.
And a single book- we'llprobably be discussing it for
many decades to come.

(19:01):
I'd like to address yourassertion that the evangelical
community in its current formhas been created by glossing
over certain theological pointsin pursuit of a few matters of
supreme importance, kind ofdumbing down a Christianity that
turns it into more of alifestyle marketed by
booksellers or on coffee cupsthan a robust system of doctrine

(19:24):
and practice.
The turning of Christianity intoa consumer enterprise where
people church hop based onpersonal preference and listen
to recorded sermons bycelebrities rather than the
words of their own pastorscreated an interesting situation
in 2016.
You write that,"During the Trumpcampaign, many pastors were
surprised to find that theywielded little influence over

(19:46):
people in the pews.
What they didn't realize wasthat they were up against a more
powerful system of authority andevangelical popular culture that
reflected and reinforced acompelling ideology and a
coherent worldview." You addthat many Christian leaders
didn't believe the poll numbersthey were seeing about
evangelical support for Trumpand attributed it to a

(20:07):
misdefinition of the wordevangelical, which is certainly
something I've heard a lot overthe years.
Who would you say holds thegreatest power and influence in
evangelicalism today?
Are parachurch ministries comingalongside churches to help them
or effectively just supplantingthem?

Oh, where is the authority within
evangelicalism?
That is a huge question becauseit's so diffused, and I think
that certain denominations holdquite a bit of authority- not
unlimited.
So the SBC would be I think topamong- even though they would
say they're not a denomination,I'll consider them one for our

(20:46):
purposes.
The SBC holds a lot of power.
Christian publishing has held anenormous amount of power:
something like Lifeway ChristianBooks, previously Family
Christian Bookstores.
That's a kind of hidden powerthat we don't- that we're blind
to.
But thinking about what defineswhat is acceptable, what is
good?
What is"Christian" is and hasbeen for many people what

(21:09):
appears in their Christianbookstores, what appears on
Christian radio.
So I think these kinds of medianetworks and distribution
networks are very important.
Individual leaders hold lessauthority than most people
think, than the media I thinktends to give them.
And frankly, I think they holdless authority than they think

(21:30):
that they hold, because whatwe're seeing here is after
really decades of cultivatingthis e vangelicalism s
ubculture, it's a populistmovement as much as anything.
And so you've got leaders whoappear to be leading, but if
they try to lead and veer off orcorrect or challenge, they often

(21:50):
find themselves kind of set outon the curb, defined out of the
community even.
And so you can be a leader ifyou stay out in front of this
populist movement, but as soonas you try to actually exercise
leadership and maybe changesomething, then the limits of
your leadership become veryquickly apparent.
So right now I would in anyconception of evangelical

(22:11):
leadership, we have to look atsome leaders, but really at the
populist dynamics here as well.
We need to look at certaindenominational structures, but
also these media empires thatreally do determine who is
platformed, who i s promoted.
We have to look at thesenetworks and conferences, all of

(22:33):
the above.
It's a very complex kind ofnetwork of alliances and
distribution networks thatdetermine who has power, and
it's constantly in flux, so it'svery interesting to look at.
It's hard to describe, but whenyou start spelling this out, I
think it really rings true to alot of people who are inside
this culture who bump up againstthese.
This is really how it works.

Yeah.
I mean, I definitely have toagree with that from my
experience withinevangelicalism.
And it's so different from thehistoric Christian system where
you'd have bishops and a wholesystem of- a whole hierarchy of
authority.
And I'm not saying that onesystem is better than the other,

(23:18):
or one system's without flawsand the other one has flaws, but
every system has both good andbad aspects.
And the aspect of evangelicalismis that because there isn't that
kind of hierarchical structure,like you said, it can take on
very much a cart leading thehorse kind of situation.
Yeah, I think that's a reallygood observation.

(23:40):
Moving on, advocates ofcomplementarian and/or
patriarchal views ofChristianity often present their
teachings as nothing but whatthe Church has taught for 2000
years.
However, the following thesexual revolution of the 1960s,
a number of conservativetheologians here in North
America promoted an ideal o ffemale submission that was

rooted in Creation (24:02):
in the very definition of what a woman is
rather than something that cameabout as a result of the Fall.
This was affirmed by the DanversStatement put out by the Council
on Biblical Manhood andWomanhood i n the late 1980s and
included i n an update to theSouthern Baptist Convention's
official doctrinal statement,the Baptist Faith and Message in

(24:23):
1998.
You also note another doctrinaltrend among theologians
connected to the CBMW related todefinitions of the Trinity: God
the Son has been described aseternally submissive to God the
Father in his very divinity, andthis is then linked to the
submission of women to men.
This led to a major controversyin 2016, when those with a good

(24:45):
knowledge of historic theologynoted that it violated a number
of principles held by theChurch, dating back to the
Council of Nicaea and representsa kind of Subordinationism or
Semi- A rianism.
Nevertheless, personally for me,as a witness to some of that
debate, I was struck by how manyprominent evangelical leaders

(25:06):
considered these Trinitariandisagreements to be a little
importance within thecomplementarian movement.
Given the kind of dumbing downof theology within the
evangelical sphere, have wereached the point where we are
no longer able to effectivelydiscern or be alarmed by major
theological errors, or have webecome lulled into a place where

(25:28):
as long as s omething seems tosupport our view of gender, we
don't see a need to inquire intoi ts biblical a nd theological
correctness?
That's sort of the feeling I'veg otten.
Did you find that also when youwere doing your research?

Yeah.
So we're talking about thedoctrine of the Trinity- pretty
essential doctrine of"traditional Christianity." We

could also add baptism (25:50):
infant or adult baptism historically
has been an issue that deeplydivided Christians, but people
are cool with that now.
Pre-millennialism,post-millennialism, or

amillennialism (26:02):
all these things too really are just side issues
now, and what has really beenelevated are issues of
patriarchy and certain views ofgender and sexuality.
And so these kind of politicaland cultural values that- have
displaced traditionaltheological disputes.

(26:24):
And what that means then is itcan be very hard to have
theological conversations aroundthese issues, right?
Because theology does speak intoissues of family, gender,
sexuality, and the like, butthose conversations- we aren't
having them often enough wellenough because theology has lost

(26:45):
its power.
New definitions of orthodoxydefine out of hand who gets to
participate in theseconversations, right?
Who has legitimacy.
And so if you're coming with aview that challenges patriarchy,
you're not even part of theconversation, or on LGBTQ
issues, already you're definedout of the fold.
And so you might have your Biblewide open and you might have

(27:09):
centuries of theology thatyou're going to bring into this
conversation, and it's not goingto matter, and it's not just on
issues of gender and sexualityeither.
I think that's what we've seenon a wide array of political and
cultural issues.
So when I talk with immigrationactivists, those who are working
in faith communities and- justdespair.

(27:32):
"We have the Bible verses.
We have the'welcome, thestranger,' the hospitality, we
have all of these and we canhold our Bibles open, sit down
with evangelical Christians, andwe get absolutely nowhere." And
I think that's important tounderstand that we all come with
cultural lenses.
We all approach the scriptureswith cultural loyalties shaping

(27:54):
what Bible passages we elevate,which ones we ignore or dismiss
or explain away.
We all do that, but I thinkevangelicals have a tradition of

maintaining that they don't: maintaining that they are- this (28:04):
undefined
is plain reading of thescriptures, this is traditional
Christianity, this is justtruth.
And so by being blind to the waythat the cultural shapes them
and the way that they approachthe Scriptures, that makes it
really difficult to have these-precisely the theological

(28:24):
conversations that the Churchneeds to be having.
And by the Church, I mean thebroader Church, across racial
differences, acrossdenominational differences, and
across national boundaries.
Those conversations are verydifficult to have.

Many prominent American Christians, from
enthusiastic Trump supporterslike Eric Metaxas to those like
Rod Dreher who have heavilycriticized Trump, are all bound
together in the sense thattraditional Christianity in this
country- that is, in the UnitedStates- is under attack, and
something must be actively doneto protect our way of life.

(29:04):
Do you see any legitimate basisfor this persecution narrative
so common among evangelicals, oris it impossible to divide it
from racist and patriarchalsentiments?
That was one of the main thingsI wondered reading the book,
because as long as I canremember, I can remember people
having the sense that thingswere going in the wrong

(29:26):
direction and Christianity wasgoing to start to be persecuted.
I think you can make a case formaybe some things that have
contributed to that, but how doyou think about that persecution
narrative that seems to be socommon?

Yeah, it's almost a both/and in that it's
not separable from- thepersecution complex, as I think
many people would describe ittoday, is not separable from a
sense of entitlement, a sense ofexercising power, not just
carving out a space to exist,but by- You look at the way that

(30:06):
religious freedom is used inconservative evangelical

circles (30:10):
it's a slippery term because sometimes it means,"So I
have freedom to practice myfaith and live out my faith." It
also often means also,"Christianity is the established
faith of this land.
This is a Christian nation, andit is our job as faithful
Christians to keep it faithful,to return it to faithfulness and

(30:30):
to reassert a kind of Christianvalues." And so they are very
much linked, not just in therhetoric, but also in the
practice.
That said, I think there issomething to the sense among
conservative Christians,particularly conservative white
Christians, that whereas theirways of doing things and seeing

(30:53):
things used to be more dominant,more centered, that with a
greater diversity and withdifferent trends that have gone
against traditional values asthey would frame them,
particularly since the 1960s-that's a really critical decade
for many conservatives wherethey see things really starting

(31:14):
to go wrong.
There is a sense that they nolonger represent the mainstream.
And I think that's been a reallydisorienting experience,
particularly in light of thelast decade or two, with changes
on cultural views on sexuality,the Obergefell ruling, and the
question of where this cultureis going.

(31:37):
Now, that rhetoric has beenaround literally for decades,
and it's always a,"Urgent!Urgent!" like craziest
situation.
So I don't want to discountthat, right?
Much of this is a manufacturedpanic, but there is some truth
to their experience,particularly through the Obama
administration, that really rangtrue to what they had been
telling themselves for decades.

(31:59):
And so that kind of converged in2016, that they felt they were

losing (32:04):
not just they were losing dominance, they were
losing kind of their hold onculture.
And at the same time, they feltthat because of LGBTQ issues in
particular and the way religiousfreedom was being interpreted
towards their communities, thatthey could no longer live
according to their values.
Now, I want to return verybriefly to this side note that

(32:26):
for decades conservative,Christian leaders had been
stoking this fear that,"This isdecline.
We are being marginalized.
Our way of life is under threat.
And we hold these traditionalvalues.
We need to restore America andrestore American Christianity."
And part of that was I'm surewhat they actually thought, but

(32:49):
it's also important toacknowledge that that rhetoric
and that fear-mongering also wasabsolutely critical to building
the infrastructure of theReligious Right, to securing
incredible amounts of money fromsmall donors.
It was critical to buildinglocal churches and religious
empires from people like JerryFalwell and Mark Driscoll.

(33:11):
I mean, this is how it worked.
And so part of it, legitimatefear, a lot of it also fear that
was being actively stoked byleaders who stood to gain an
awful lot by keeping theirfollowers afraid and promising
their followers protection inpower.

Yeah, I originally was educated in
political science, nd one thingthat I learned from those
classes that I took in collegeis the dirty little secret that
political strategists know,which is that even though
everybody says they don't wantto see negative campaign ads,
negative campaign ads, anythingthat appeals to fear is very

(33:49):
effective at driving people'svote.
And we've- I think the pastcouple presidential election
cycles, we've certainly seenboth from evangelical Christians
and I think almost in a mirrorimage on the other side of
people who were just terrifiedof Trump and what he was going
to do- I think that we've seenpeople's votes and behavior, not

(34:10):
even just on voting day, but inall society being driven very
much by fear.
And it speaks, I guess, to justour self instinct for
preservation.
But like you said, that fearnarrative is very convenient as
well.
Even if you happen to believeit, it's also very convenient
for gaining power and wealth andinfluence.

(34:32):
Yeah, I think that's a goodanalysis there.
As a female writer within thebroadly evangelical sphere, I've
certainly faced some criticism,and interestingly, the most
biting comments have come fromwomen rather than men.
This has led me to wonder whywomen would support extreme
versions of patriarchy, andcertainly there are a lot of

(34:54):
women who do.
I think you may have hit on apossible reason in your book.
You explained that,"For manyhousewives, the new
opportunities feminism promisedwere not opportunities at all.
To those who had few employableskills and no means or desire to
escape the confines of theirhomes, feminism seemed to
denigrate their very identityand threatened their already

(35:16):
precarious existence.
It was better to play the cardsthat they were dealt." Even so,
you also talk about PhyllisSchafly, a successful and
ambitious woman who presumablycould have taken advantage of
many of the changes broughtabout by feminism, but who
nevertheless became a championof patriarchal ideology.
So what do you see going onhere?

(35:38):
Did you come to any conclusionas to that phenomenon?

Yeah, Schafly herself said she didn't
need feminism because look ather, right?
Look at everything she wasdoing.
So she was just this gadfly andfrustrated feminists to no end.
But yeah, I think there are alot of different reasons that
conservative women would supporta patriarchal order, one of
which is many, many Christianwomen have been taught that that

(36:06):
is how they are faithful to God,and I don't want to discount
that belief in- genuine desireto be obedient- that this is
what girls are taught from avery young age.
This is what parents teach theirchildren, what schools
inculcate, particularly in theirdaughters.
And if you are a believer, yougenerally want to be obedient:

(36:32):
to be a good Christian.
So generations of women havebeen taught that this is what it
is to be a good Christian, to bea good Christian woman, a good
Christian wife and mother.
So that's part of it.
There's also power that comes towomen who are able to accept or
even flourish in these roles.
Some women are perfectly happystaying at home, being primarily

(36:55):
identified as wife and mother.
For some, it suits themperfectly well.
And for those women, it doesseem a challenge to their
identity that other womenperhaps are telling them there's
more, there's more to life or,"That's great and all, but
you're not living up to yourpotential." And so it gets very
personal very quickly.
But for women who feelcomfortable in that sphere- for

(37:16):
women who maybe have played bythose rules, whether they were
comfortable or not, there is acertain power that comes to
women who play these roles,right?
They are promised protection.
They are promised kind of beingplaced on a pedestal.
They are promised that they willhave the power to"influence" and

(37:36):
that they are cherished and thatthey are loved for fulfilling
those roles.
So again, if that works for you,and if you find fulfillment and
perhaps you have a husband whois"patriarchal" but very kind
and loving, then what's the bigdeal?
What's the problem?
So each woman kind ofexperiences this ideology in her
own way, and each woman is wireddifferently.

(37:57):
And so I think there's just sucha range of experiences.
I've talked to so many women,and for some, it's all great.
For some it's like,"Yeah, lipservice to this, but here's what
it really looks like in mymarriage, but, you know, fine."
And then there are others whohave been utterly crushed,
utterly crushed by theseteachings: who have left the
faith, who have- are stilldealing with a religious trauma,

(38:17):
emotional trauma, and reallybroken lives.
And so there's just such a rangeof experiences, but for white
Christian women too, there is abroader social power that they
participate in, and so byfulfilling their roles within
this culture, they are thenelevated to positions of social

(38:39):
power as well, and I thinkthat's important to recognize
too.

Yeah, that's a good point.
About a decade and a half ago, amovement famously titled by
Colin Hansen"Young, Restless,and Reformed" became prominent
within American evangelicalism.
You note that it wascharacterized by a resurgence of
Calvinist theology, but one thatwas linked very closely with a
certain view of gender.
The most prominent leader inthat movement was probably John

(39:06):
Piper, and it was largelythrough him and his followers
that two individuals who I mustdescribe as highly problematic,
got introduced to a much widerevangelical audience: Mark
Driscoll and Douglas Wilson.
I don't have time to go into allthe things that made those two
men problematic, but you do agood job of highlighting many of
them in your book.
Both men have been characterizedby their patriarchal views and

(39:28):
highly combative tendencies, aswell as the presence of
profanity and sexual content intheir writings.
During that time period, theywere promoted in various ways by
Desiring God, The GospelCoalition and Christianity
Today.
I've personally seen how thewritings of these two men have
made their way into the churchesI've attended and are still
being shared on social media bymy friends, even though many

(39:51):
evangelical leaders have backedaway from them.
It troubles me that they couldbe promoted by so many Christian
leaders and that so many redflags were ignored.
Could you speak a bit to thatcomplicated legacy of the Young,
Restless, and Reformed movement,and does the way Driscoll and
Wilson's flaws were excusedprovide a kind of example in
miniature of how manyevangelicals would treat Donald

(40:13):
Trump?

Yeah, exactly.
So a little autobiographicalbackground: I'm a Calvinist.
I'm very Reformed.
I'm Dutch Reformed.
I grew up in...

I never would have guessed that with Calvin
University that you were aCalvinist!

Well, you know, it's so funny because I am
on Twitter a lot and my researchis at the intersection of
religion and politics.
So there's lots of potential forcontroversy, but seriously, the
most controversial thing thatI've said on Twitter is probably
coming out as a Calvinist causeso many people there don't- I
don't have Calvin University onmy bio, mostly to cut back on

(40:50):
the number of letters that mypresident gets.
So I grew up deeply Reformed.
I took an entire course on the-Calvin's Institutes of the
Christian Religion.
I can talk Calvinism with thebest of them.
And then I went off to gradschool and this was in the late
nineties, and it was at thatpoint that I kind of was
introduced to a broaderevangelicalism and realized that

(41:10):
I was coming from a very nichelocation within American
Christianity.
But right around then that'swhen Desiring God was all the
rage and evangelicals werediscovering Reformed theology.
And I was like,"Yes, this is ourmoment in the sun! I am
Calvinist, and this is us, andlook at- we have all this
offer." This is exactly what Ihad always been told, right?

(41:32):
We had the best Christianity.
We had the best theology andhere we are, and now you guys
are discovering it.
Welcome! But then I discoveredsoon that I wasn't really
included in this Young,Restless, and Reformed movement.
I might've initially identifiedwith them.
I don't think they would haveidentified with me as a young,

(41:53):
single graduate studentintellectual, right?
There was not really a place forme in that community.
And so I had to kind of teasethat out, right?
Who are they?
Because I'm Calvinist, butthere's- are there differences
here?
Right?
And their covenantal theologydidn't look like what I thought
it was, and my interpretation ofCalvin, which had been given to

(42:14):
me through Dutch Canadianprofessors- so no Christian
nationalism in the mix, at leastAmerican Christian nationalism,
not at all, just very different.
And so then I started payingattention to what- who was
welcomed into those circles, whowas a"brother in Christ." And
that's where things get reallydisturbing.

(42:35):
So you have somebody like MarkDriscoll and in the book, I
detail just what- he was sodeeply misogynistic,
militaristic, crass, abusive interms of how he wielded his
power in his church.
And he was- and this was allknown.
None of this was secret.
He was very open about who hewas, what he said.

(42:58):
And some evangelical leaderswere a little bit uncomfortable,
but kind of also a littleenvious.
He was successful.
Many evangelical pastors werepatterning their own ministries
after his, and somebody likeJohn Piper can kind of chuckle a
little bit and,"Well, you know Iwouldn't go along with

(43:20):
everything he says and, you know, take issue with his
interpretation of Song of Songs,but, you know, he's really
putting the gospel out there."Somebody like Douglas Wilson,
perhaps even more extreme.
I don't know.
It's hard to judge.
But definitely he just revels inbeing provocative and being
shocking and identifying himselfover against this mainstream

(43:44):
evangelicalism that doesn't havethe spine that he has, and his
offensiveness is his badge ofhonor.
He too said extremely troublingthings about race in particular.
Well, not in particular, he saida lot of troubling things about
sex and sexual abuse and genderand also race.
And then to have somebody likePiper again, give them cover.

(44:07):
And you know,"He's a brother inChrist," and the way that the

word gospel was used (44:12):
you have The Gospel Coalition, this is
gospel truth, and he's advancingthe gospel.
It really made me start towonder, what gospel are they
talking about?
But it is such powerful languagewhen you use language like
"brother in Christ." It's veryexclusive, but it can cover so
much.
Use language like,"This is thegospel witness." Um, what is

(44:35):
your gospel?
And I really tried to make thisprocess visible, and hopefully
some of these questions moreprominent when we look back over
that history.

Complementarian leaders, such as Al Mohler or
John Piper, have tended todismiss the idea that their
ideology of gender contributesto the abuse of women.
They have even suggested thategalitarianism makes women more
vulnerable by removing theconcept of male protection.

(45:07):
Given your study of the historyof the complementarian movement,
which you've described as"softpatriarchy," do you believe that
these teachings are naturallyleading to the abuse of women in
various ways, or is it thehijacking and twisting of
complementarianism that has ledto these abuses?
In other words, do youpersonally believe that

(45:29):
complementarianism is redeemableor is it inevitably part of the
problem?

Yeah, such a hard question.
I'm going to answer it manydifferent ways because on the
one hand, I know complementarianmen who would never abuse a
woman.
So on an individual basis,complementarian beliefs and even
practices do not lead tophysical sexual abuse of women.
They need not, right?

(45:55):
So on an individual basis,that's very important to
acknowledge.
More broadly, I don't know thatcomplementarian or patriarchal
religious beliefs would leadsomebody to abuse who otherwise
wouldn't.
I don't know.
My discipline- history- does notequip me to accurately address

(46:18):
that question, so it's an openquestion for me.
There are some studies in thesocial sciences that are
positing some links, but that'sreally not where my focus has
been.
What I have seen is how theseteachings inhibit victims from

(46:40):
responding to situations ofabuse in effective ways, how
women who have embraced the"Godgiven" teachings that they must
submit to their husbands, thatthey must sexually submit to
their husbands, that theirhusbands have power over them
and power over their bodies,this really kind of

(47:01):
authoritarian structure, andwhere children must submit to
their parents and parents haveabsolute authority over their
children.
These teachings individually, Ithink, inhibit the ways that
people can respond when theyfind themselves in terrifying
and abusive situations, and italso constrains the response on

(47:22):
the part of the wider community.
And that pattern, I think, isundeniable: that when abuse
surfaces within conservativereligious organizations, there
is a real struggle for membersof those communities- for
bystanders to call out thatabuse, to hold perpetrators
accountable, particularly whenthose perpetrators hold

(47:45):
positions of authority.
So fathers in their own familiesand pastors in their own
churches, leaders in their ownorganizations- that the
teachings of submission and ofauthority along with protecting
the brand- and there's nothingunique to conservative
evangelicalism in a desire toprotect the brand.
But protect the"witness of thechurch," just kind of

(48:06):
strengthens that.
That's where I see the effectsof complementarian or
patriarchal teachings, orauthority structures really
shaping it, really entrappingvictims and producing this kind
of second tragedy.
So the abuse being the firsttragedy, and then the second

(48:27):
tragedy, when I hear fromsurvivors often, what is even
more difficult to process is theway in which their family
members, their churchcommunities dismissed what was
happening, did not help them,many times ended up blaming
women for their abuse, evenyoung children for their abuse.

(48:48):
And it's that kind of secondbetrayal that is often the
hardest for survivors to come toterms with.
And so I would suggest that weneed to look at teachings and
practices within patriarchalsystems to understand that.
I'll also take things a littlebit further and say that my

(49:10):
first book actually made merethink this question entirely.
And it's A New Gospel for Women,and it's a history of Christian
feminism looking particularly atCatherine Bushnell, who was an
anti-trafficking activist.
So in modern terminology, sheworked with prostitutes and
worked to restore and worked tochange legislation and to really
advocate for women.
And she did so as a Christian inthe late 19th and early 20th

(49:32):
century, and after repeatedencounters of quote"respectable
Christian men" who areperpetrating abuse against women
- and she saw the same patternsof condoning this abuse, of
blaming the victims in the late19th, early 20th century- she
finally concluded in her words,"The crime must be the fruit of
the theology." And she in fact,did go back to the teachings of

(49:55):
the submission of women andclaimed that she did not find it
rooted in Creation at all.
She found it rooted in the Falland therefore Jesus brought
redemption and Jesus brought theliberation of women.
And she claimed that any personwho was told to submit to
another person- that that is initself abuse, that is in itself

(50:18):
injustice.
And so, you know, there's atheological argument that we can
have, and we're going to havedifferent opinions, but I think
I wouldn't want to displacethat.
I think we can have that know.
Is this actually in accord withthe word of God, or is it a
distortion of the word of God?
And if it is a distortion thanit is at its heart, I think,
potentially abusive, even not byaction, but just in its

(50:40):
existence.
And so yes, many complicatedways to approach that question.
It's not a simplistic question,but it's definitely one that we
need to wrestle with activelyand we need to do so with nuance
and in community.

Yeah.
And for me, the biggest issue isthat these are questions that
you really can't ask very loudlywithin the evangelical and
Reformed world, the conservativeend of it.
And that is my biggest concern.
Like ffter all it was revealedhow many sexual abuse cases

(51:15):
there were in the SouthernBaptist Convention over the past
few decades- Was it two yearsago that all came on in The
Houston Chronicle?
- And it seemed like as soon asthey asked the question I just
asked you, it was immediatelyshut down.
"Well, of course not.
Of course it's not a problemwith the theology." And whether
or not we ultimately determinethat there's any problem with

(51:38):
the theology, I think that suchenormous moral failures require
us to sit in that discomfort fora little while and be willing to
really consider the question andgive it- Asking that question is
almost an act of lamenting andwe need to be willing to lament

(52:00):
over what has happened andconsider if, like you said, when
you're seeing so much terriblefruit everywhere, is there
something rotten at the core?
And it could be, like I said-and I'm not trying to come to
any conclusion either over whatthis means for whether only men
should be pastors or whatever.
You know, my personal opinion isalways that I'm okay with the

(52:23):
traditional Christian positionof only men being elders.
But I think sometimes becausewe're so afraid of what change
can mean, we're not even willingto ask the questions, even when
terrible things are happening.
And I think we need to, like Isaid, sit for a little while in
that very uncomfortable positionof considering that we might

(52:43):
possibly be wrong aboutsomething.
So yeah, go ahead.
I'm sorry.

Quick pushback too, against the
blaming egalitarianism, becausethat's exactly what we heard for
abuse, because it takes awaymen's role as protectors.
And there as a Calvinist, I'llpush back and say, you know,
that's really assuming that menwho are given this authority,
who are told to wield thisauthority are somehow untainted,

(53:08):
right?
That we can trust that men aregoing to be wielding this
authority appropriately, andthat this authority is not in
any way corrupted, and I thinkthat history does not bear that
out.
And so some more humility withwho we give power to and what
checks are placed on that poweris very much needed, and that
kind of argument againstegalitarianism really neglects

(53:30):
the potential for corruption ofthat patriarchal power, I think.

You end your book with the sentence,"What was
once done might also be undone."My question is, can this be
undone?
Do you think that there islikely to be any real soul
searching among evangelicalsover the issues you brought up
in your book in the years tocome?
Or is this such aself-perpetuating cycle that it
can't reasonably be stoppedanytime soon?

Yeah.
When I finished the book, I wasmore pessimistic.
I was very pessimistic, so muchso that that last sentence was
not in the book originally, andtowards the end of edits, my
editor came to me and was like,"This is really depressing.
Could you give us something?
You know, you can't leave yourreaders in this place." And so I
thought about it and I thought,okay, what can I give them?

(54:20):
And then I thought- I was like,"I've got nothing," right?
I felt the same way.
After tracing this history, it'sso deeply enmeshed.
It is generation upon generationpackaged and sold as biblical
truth.
No, I wasn't thinking I wasgoing to change any minds.
I really just wanted to testifyas a historian- to trace it and
to hold it up for us to see.

(54:41):
And then- so he, my editor,said,"Okay, I respect that." And
then two days later he was like,"No, no, Kristin- just give us
something.
We need something here." Andthat's when I gave him that last
sentence, and honestly, it just-I was embarrassed to even give
it to him because it felt toofeeble.
But I do believe that, and Ibelieve that history is

absolutely critical (55:00):
that if we know this history, if we know
how this came to be, we canstart to see that,"Hey,
actually, it wasn't inevitable."That there were individual
choices made at differentmoments.
There were alternatives, therewere paths that were not taken.
And we can see the motives ofsome of the people who are
making these decisions, and wecan start to ask, is this

(55:21):
faithful Christianity?
Is this in fact where we want tobe?
And I think when we have thishistory in front of us, it's
much easier to start askingthose questions.
And we have this commonunderstanding of the past.
And I will say that since thebook has published, I've become
in some ways more hopeful,despite everything that's
happened in the country, becauseI've seen how many people have

(55:45):
really latched onto that lastsentence: how many people have
seen that as an invitation, as achallenge.
I have been shocked by how manyof my readers are conservative
evangelicals themselves- arepeople who are coming out of
that place and that they areembracing this story.
I hear from so many peoplesaying some version of,"This is
the story of my life." And alsosaying,"What can we do?

(56:09):
What can we do to undo this?
Where do we start?" And I didnot anticipate that enthusiastic
reception of this book in thosepockets, not at all.
Again, I really just wanted totestify.
So what can be- it's going totake a lot of individual acts of
courage because there is a cost.
There is sometimes an enormouscost for people to speak out, to

(56:33):
reject some of these teachings,these values.
Families are broken over this.
Church communities are rentasunder, relationships are
ruined, and sometimes the costisn't very high.
You just never really know untilyou take some of these steps,
but I've heard a lot in the lastfew months from organizations,

(56:55):
from institutions, fromindividuals, leaders asking this
question, and what can we dowhile still acknowledging their
constraints?
So a university, a magazine, auniversity is going to lose
students, maybe, or donors, amagazine losing donors, their
subscribers.
What happens if a pastor speaksout and he gets kicked out of

(57:16):
his church?
That's happened.
So I think the constraints arestill very present and very
evident, and there's maybe morewill to change than people
acting on it at this point.
And so to me, it's an openquestion where things are going
to go.
Are we going to kind of settleback into a status quo, where
some of these deep, deepdifferences, theological

(57:39):
political differences arepapered over by language like,
"We're all brothers and sistersin Christ, and we're all good
here." Or have the last fouryears and the last three months
made that impossible- that wecan't patch that back together?
I'm not sure.
The status quo tends to be verypowerful, almost like a
gravitational pull, but in mylifetime, I have never seen this

(58:04):
level of soul searching among atleast- I don't know how sizable-
a fair sized group ofevangelicals, including many
evangelical leaders.
So I am still going to behopeful that something is going
to change.
How deep that change goes is notyet clear.

Well, that's probably a good place to end on
both a hopeful note and achallenge for all of us.
I'd really encourage everyone toread your book, and I'm so
grateful that you wrote itbecause- I don't know, maybe
you're a little bit insulatedfrom some of the consequences of
writing something like this, butI can assure you that writing a

(58:43):
book like this, a lot of peoplewould lose their jobs and would-
I mean, I've found even just- Idon't normally criticize
evangelical leaders by name, butthe few occasions I've done so,
oh man! Even if you're reallycareful about the way you do it,
it can be very punishing.
But it's important to speakprophetically on occasion, so I

(59:08):
appreciate your willingness todo that, and thank you so much
for coming on the podcast totalk to me today.

Speaker 4 (59:12):
Oh, thank you.
It was a great conversation.

Jon Guerra (59:16):
[MUSIC PLAYS]

Speaker 6 (59:43):
I was grateful for the opportunity to speak to
Kristin today about her book.
Unfortunately, I was only ableto focus on part of what she had
to say in that book.
There was a mountain of possiblequestions that I did not ask.
I would highly encourage you toread this work of history for
yourself and draw your ownconclusions about what she has
to say.
Whether or not you agree withsome of her conclusions, I think

(01:00:04):
there is no doubt that she hasbeen very thorough in her
research and presented a lot ofgood food for thought.
As always, today's music comesfrom the song"Citizens" by
Christian recording artist JonGuerra.
His newest album, Keeper ofDays, is a real treat, and I
invite you to check it out.
Thank you so much for listeningto today's discussion.
Allow me to wrap up with anadmonition from scripture.

(01:00:26):
"Therefore, since we also havesuch a great cloud of witnesses
surrounding us, let's ridourselves of every obstacle and
the sin which so easilyentangles us, and let's run with
endurance the race that is setbefore us, looking only at
Jesus, the originator andperfecter of the faith, who for
the joy set before him enduredthe cross, despising the shame
and has sat down at the righthand of the throne of God."

(01:00:49):
Amen.
Come Lord Jesus.
Have a great week.

Jon Guerra (01:00:53):
Is there a way to live always living in enemy
hallways?
Don't know my foes from myfriends and don't know my
friends anymore.
Power has several prizes.
Handcuffs can come in all sizes.
Love has a million disguises,but winning is simply not one.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Jesus and John Wayne with Kristin Kobes du Mez

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

Jesus and John Wayne with Kristin Kobes du Mez

24/7 News: The Latest