Kristin Kobes Du Mez doesn’t need my help. She’s doing perfectly fine on her own. Still, I can’t stop myself from rising to her defense after reading Bonnie Kristian’s mostly negative review of Du Mez’s new book Live Laugh Love (“Intrigue, Insinuate, Ignore”) in the September/October issue of Christianity Today. Kristian is the deputy editor of CT and author of the book In Defense of Evangelicalism, in which she critiques Du Mez’s Jesus and John Wayne. Having Kristian review Live Laugh Love is like asking my late father to review a hip hop album. His mind would have been made up long before he heard a single song.
Kristian is certainly entitled to her opinions, which should have been expressed in an opinion piece, not a review. Reviewers should be objective. But CT is puzzling these days—they are in a tough place, defending evangelicalism during the reign of Donald Trump. I am reminded of an occasion when I heard Charles Colson, not long before his death, speak about the dangers of postmodernism. I felt like I was watching a dinosaur shortly before the asteroid hit.
What I want to say to Bonnie Kristian is “Don’t you understand? You did this!”
The two presidential terms of Donald Trump, the most disastrous in U.S. history, have been given to America by Evangelical voters. You may defend evangelicalism all you want, but the brand is broken. Not only that, but evangelicalism has broken the nation.
Kristin Du Mez has gained hundreds of thousands of followers by truthfully explaining how we got here. Her message reverberates especially with women who have been wounded by the complementarian jerks who exercise power in many churches. As terrible as that is, the political shock waves of what evangelicals have done are even bigger.
The fact is Donald Trump never should have gotten out of the Republican primaries early in 2016. Evangelicals did that. His candidacy never should have survived the release of the Access Hollywood tape in the fall of 2016. Evangelicals did that. Evangelicals have made a Faustian bargain with a devil named Trump. They got what they wanted: a packed Supreme Court and the implementation of the culture war agenda of Project 2025. What has the nation received in return?
The destruction of democracy in favor of authoritarianism. Hostility towards NATO. Record deficits. Tax cuts for the richest Americans. Cruel, inhumane, and criminally violent ICE deportations. A pointless war with Iran. Unnecessary trade wars with friendly nations like Canada spurred by unneeded tariffs. Measles. Spiraling inflation from the one-two punch of tariffs and gas price hikes from the Iran war. January 6. Willful ignorance of the climate crisis. Cyclospora. The unmitigated disaster of DOGE. A government that kisses up to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. The list goes on. (Yeah, but at least boys aren’t playing girls’ sports!)
Everything Trump is trying to achieve with Iran had once been guaranteed, but Trump’s narcissism led him to destroy our nuclear agreement during his first term. (The problem with that agreement was that it was done under the Obama administration.) We are now locked in a war with no way out. Trump and his cronies fully expected Iran to roll over after a week or so of bombing. After all, that’s what Venezuela did. When that didn’t happen, we were told “a deal” would be reached soon. (Aren’t there any adults around who can insist on diplomacy instead of transactional “deals”?) But no deal is coming. $40 billion later, Iran has won the war without needing to do much more than absorb bombing. I don’t know how we get out of this other than backing down. Can Trump’s ego handle that? It remains to be seen.
Just when I thought things couldn’t get worst, an almost unthinkable scenario happened. We should be screaming about this from the rooftops. The heads of the top companies developing artificial intelligence asked that the governments of the world work together to put some guardrails on AI. Without those, the leaders of these companies said, there is a 10% chance AI will destroy humanity by the end of the decade.
I quote the President’s response because it has to be seen to be believed:
The only control or “guardrails” that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades! The Trump Administration has stopped AI “people” from doing bad, or potentially bad, “things,” like Dario (Anthropic!), who is now pretending to be a “perfect little angel” – and we will continue to do so! We already have tremendous CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power over these companies! There is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China. WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS! We are leading China, and all others, and will continue to do so. Conspiracy Theorists, Treasonists, Traitors, and Leakers, BEWARE! Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP
Remember “I alone can fix it”? It’s back, in spades (so to speak). The world is in real trouble. How does this end well?
Hey Bonnie, evangelicals did this.
51 Responses
Yes and Amen!
Thank you Jeff!
Thank you for having the courage to step up about the issues and for Kristin. We have to find a way to get along w the evangelicals who “did this” but I did not understand that CT review. It seemed snippy and didn’t make sense as a book review.
This is EXCELLENT, Jeff. Thank you.
Frightening, insightful, and right on target (again!) Thank you, Jeff.
Measles?
Vaccine skepticism fomented by our Secretary of Health and Human Services has led to lower vaccination rates, which have lead to spikes in measles cases and deaths in my state of PA. Yes. Measles.
https://www.factcheck.org/2026/08/what-we-know-about-pennsylvanias-two-measles-associated-deaths/
The above source is very sympathetic to people with TDS, but even it admits that the two deaths Josh Shapiro blamed on measles is essentially a lie. One baby died of a ruptured spleen, and PA won’t give any information on the other death. Wonder why…
Stop being rolled by scoundrels.
The article you shared is thorough and filled with nuanced information. There is nothing in it that says that measles – a disease almost entirely preventable with a safe, effective vaccine – did not play a role in the deaths. And there have been additional measles related deaths since the two to which you refer.
Interesting that you take one small topic but are silent on all of the rest…. Are you saying that the rest of what Jeff wrote is also a silly myth?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2026/07/24/cdc-has-announced-record-measles-numbers-see-how-bad-cases-have-been/
From July 24, 2026. See graph about half-way down the article. from Johns Hopkins U.
You have rather perfectly, but not surprisingly, demonstrated one of the methods promulgated by evangelical apologists. That is, in a list of 14 ills brought on by the Trump administration, you separate out one that seems implausible to you, as if finding one fly in an ocean of ointment disqualifies the vast sea. (As stated below; “yes, measles,” anyway.) This is classic evangelical method. It also happens to be classic rhetorical method employed by Fox opinion television. Am I going too far when I associate this kind of prosecutorial rhetoric with the prosecutor whom the Bible identifies as “the Satan”? I don’t know. You tell me. (For the record, I am not calling you Satan nor am I charging you with being satanic. I am pointing to the nature of the rhetoric and its use.)
Fox?
Oh man, I did it again…
You got me!
Honestly, I didn’t know I was employing a “classic evangelical method” as you Accuse (wait…). I simply picked “measles” because it was a “tell”. It reveals (again) that JM has an acute case of TDS and he will fling whatever rhetorical feces he reads or hears if it bolsters his worldview. He should be better than that, but he’s not.
As for KKDM, it seems like her 15 minutes are up. Unless the Republicans have a good election and the Media want to bring her back to dump on Christians. I don’t think that will happen.
You do like arguing sideways to provoke, don’t you?
But there’s so much to dump and so little time.
I used to think I was a progressive evangelical because I accepted Christ when I was 16 or 17. The dictionary even says that part of being Evangelical is to accept that Christ died, Christ rose, and Christ will come again. Which I believe. But with the rise of evangelicals who are so ultra conservative, I now know that I am “just” a progressive Christian. Thanks for all you do Jeff.
Ms. Du Mez’s recent book is the height of cultural elite snobbery. It says that Christian women do not have the intelligence to form their own beliefs or to have a genuine thought-out desire to live conservative Christian lives, have conservative political beliefs, look beautiful, have neat well-run homes and have good marriages. The book instead says that these women are empty vessels whose identity was formed, not by a conservative reading of the Bible and the examples shown by their conservative Christian female mentors, but by evil Bible study guides and novels from the set of The Handmaids Tale plus a few too many kitschy throw pillows scattered about the living room with Jesus’ name and the word “love” on them.
Ms. Du Mez had the same elitist attitude towards conservative men in her previous book: “Jesus and John Wayne.” That book said that conservative white Christian men were empty vessels whose identity was shaped by their whiteness, the patriarchy and the John Wayne male ideal. She never gave credence to the fact that conservative males had enough intelligence to form their own ideas about manhood, political beliefs and the responsibility and to care for their families from a conservative reading of the Bible and the examples shown by their conservative male mentors.
I wonder what the ideal marriage partner roles and characteristics, political beliefs, interior design décor, bookshelf contents and a filled in voter ballot would be for Ms. Du Mez? Probably more Upper East Side and Cambridge than mid-America.
At the end of the day, all the condemnation of Evangelicals for supporting Trump boils down to elitism and politics, not a mis-application of Christian beliefs by Evangelicals.
I think all men posting here should first ask the women in their lives (moms, sisters, wives and friends) if they have ever felt pressure to be something they aren’t in order to make a man comfortable … to make you comfortable.
We men want to feel good and we want to be right. We tend to expect women to help us feel that way even when we suspect we might be neither. I’ll go first and ask my wife right now … admitting that here might make you presume I’m from the upper east side or Cambridge or just an elite.
I have a lot of male friends from mid-America who will join me I’m sure. I hope you do Mark.
You clearly did not grow up in a Dutch/Friesian Christian Reformed agricultural community as I did. As is the case on most Dutch/Friesian farms, the women I knew ran dairies, ran hog and cattle fattening operations and generally managed the finances of the farm. These women were true life partners with their husbands, and I can assure you that none of them, including my 6 aunts and 10+ female cousins, ever did anything to just to make their men feel comfortable including voting for Trump which I am sure most of them did.
You are showing the same elitist snobbery that Kristin Du Mez demonstrates in assuming that conservative women do not have the ability or fortitude to think and act for themselves. I am happy to introduce you to some Dutch/Friesian women I know if you do not believe me.
I nominate Mark Nydam as the long-awaited conservative (or at least non-conformist) commentator for the RJ.
To build on his gender claims:
Some of the strongest female characters in Hollywood history are the female leads in John Wayne movies. I don’t know if they were Friesian, but they could be.
I second this idea.
If all the beings that contribute here, and identify as cisgendered biological males (if that’s still a thing), were to ask their marriage partners, who, conversely, identify as cisgendered biological females (again, if that’s still a thing), if they’ve ever felt pressure from their men (for lack of a better term) to act or perform in a manner that is incongruent with their identity or makes them feel uncomfortable, and then report those conversations back to the RJ community…
…hilarity will ensue.
Thanks for sorting this all out for me. I was confused. I thought maybe your partner would speak on her own behalf, but here you are, speaking for her. Proving Du Mez point.
Mark, I read “Jesus and John Wayne,” but it doesn’t sound at like the book you read. I plan to read her latest book as well and will now be eager to see if, in fact, it’s the same one you are criticizing so harshly here.
Please reassure me–us all–you have, in fact, read both of these books you dislike so much.
Because if you haven’t, your criticism is unfounded.
Mark, Yes, I have read both books and the Christianity Today review.
Thank you. At least we can agree that one should only criticize a book one has read, but I thoroughly disagree with your characterization of the author, a Christian thinker I’ve come to really respect, and of her book “Jesus and John Wayne.” I’ll leave it at that.
If Kristen DuMez’s new book is “the height of cultural elite snobbery”, then I wonder how you would characterize the critical review of the book in the New York Times (by Caroline Fraser 9/16/2026). Can’t we just read something with a slightly open mind, agree or disagree with some or all of it, without becoming defensive and having to slap labels on people? Yes, it’s hard to take criticism, but it’s ok… It’s ok to admit that maybe we’re not always 100% right.
Mark,
I find this to be rather demeaning to everyone. An entire summary of the work that Ms. Du Mez has done over the last 10+ years can be summarized by claiming she simply sees all women and men, who are evangelical, as empty vessels. If we’re going to roll down this unhelpful road, then all university students at “liberal” schools are empty vessels. All kids even considering their gender are empty vessels. I could go on with the same sort of unhelpful critique of right/conservative leaning evaluations of everything that’s wrong with higher education or healthcare or name that tune.
It doesn’t really help any of us engage the complex topics that are raised by Ms. Du Mez, which should be taken more seriously than “empty vessel” dismissal, and for that matter, if we didn’t dismiss conservative folk and their concerns about higher education with “empty vessel” dismissal, we could read Tyler Anthony Harper’s viral essay entitled, “Confessions of a Token Black Professor,” and start taking more seriously a nuanced approach to addressing higher education, DEI and wokeism. Here’s the link to the article.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/09/elite-academia-leadership-hypocrisy/687969/
Instead, we point to our Dutch CRC agricultural community as if that somehow means anything (my wife and I grew up in a very similar community, and I assure you, she does not share your opinion of Ms. Du Mez, neither do I).
Of course, none of this actually matters unless we can start to read and think and discuss things with something like grace. I don’t know. I learned that from my Dutch CRC/RCA community, but I don’t find it a lot on these pages when we’re trying to engage on difficult issues.
Dr. Du Mez
Yes! Thank you, Meg.
Thank you Meg,
I was using Mark’s language and should have done better. Of course, I can hear the “elitism” comment bubbling up from many corners.
I wonder if we might be able to subscribe to this counsel: “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another”. . . I confess I fall into the provocation trap. It may be all well and good for secular critics to offer snide commentary of any and every author who gores their oxen, but, it might be good for us to agree that “it ought not be so among you.” (Misapplication, I know.) Or at least we might agree to cut out the snark and the malice.
There was a time when evangelical meant something closer to its Greek root “euangelion” – good news. Sadly, as you point out so well, Jeff, that is no longer true.
Not sure it will ever mean that again.
White evangelicals split about 3-1 Republican. Almost as lopsided as African American or college professor votes go to Democrats. People have their reasons for their partisan loyalties, but it’s kind of silly if not dangerous to demagogue a group of people for the perceived failings of a politician.
Jeff, thanks for this great piece. You are, as usual, right on.
Jeff Jeff Jeff, see what happens when you bravely explicate the cause? You find out that blame in the distraction of measles (and he’s not at all talking about measles.) took a right turn and left the point dead in a roadside ditch.
Back to the point—thank you so much from this non-evangelical, this non-nuttin’
I wish I had your wisdom and had not responded to the measles bait. Of course you are right. Thank you
Can’t argue with your conclusion! Although I have not read either Du Mez’s recent book nor the CT piece, it seems obviously pertinent to your post, a response to a particular evangelical argument. Still, considering the white Mainline vote and white Catholic vote in ’24–obviously not AS bad as the evangelical vote, but…–that still ALSO voted majority for Trump, I wonder if there’s another way to approach our present times and very different politics and theologies? It’s an honest question about Christianity generally and not against a particular stream.
About thirty years ago, I was helping lead a diversity retreat for RCA leaders and one of the “games” we played asked the people: If you had to adopt one of the following labels or the other, which would you choose. When the choice was evangelical or ecumenical, a prominent ecumenical leader surprised everyone by choosing evangelical because they said it was closer to the spirit of the gospel of Jesus. I doubt that leader would make that choice today, not because their heart has changed (I do not know), but because the terms “evangelical” has since been loaded with all kinds of bad connotative baggage. That saddens me. I consider myself an evangelical, but not at because of my politics, but because of my relationship with Jesus, the Scriptures, my mission, and my experiences of faith. But if the only thing others think of when they hear “evangelical” is Trump, misogyny and Christian nationalism, I may have to go looking for a different word. It saddens me too that many Christians now think of “evangelical” as a “them” word for an evil “other” group. I would hope that in the church of Jesus, we could think of evangelicals as “us,” even if we’re a part of a different branch of Christianity. Have some evangelicals treated other Christians as evil “them’s”? Sure. All Christian groups have engaged in such activity. Have many evangelicals succumbed to false teaching about politics these day? Yes, indeed. But that’s no time to give up on our brothers and sisters in Jesus’ family.
David, this ship has sailed. We can expect the Reformed Journal and progressive Reformed folks to “other” the evangelicals. Based on the numerous articles written on this blog that condemn evangelicals along with the many affirming comments posted in support of these articles, we can concur that the evangelicals are not part of the “us” according to progressive Christians. Note that it is very rare for a progressive in the RJ family to express the viewpoint about evangelicals that you have expressed here. Sad.
All of which does make me wonder how the progressive leaders in both the RCA and the (exiled) CRC will vote in the upcoming Michigan senate election. El Sayed represents a much more misogynistic (and homophobic) worldview than the “complementarian jerks”, aka traditional, evangelical, conservative Christians.
Good comment. I wonder why progressive Christians do not seem worried about the dangers of DSA. Crickets about this movement on these pages. Instead, most (not all, thankfully) progressives are endlessly criticizing evangelicals even though they have a big problem in their own backyard. I suspect that many progressive Christians in Michigan will vote for El Sayed.
Jeff, I could not agree with you more than what you so courageously stated. I say, THANK YOU!
“Kristian is certainly entitled to her opinions, which should have been expressed in an opinion piece, not a review.”
A review … is an opinion.
Well, reviews do include opinions. I suppose that, if you’re going to go whole hog for post-modernism, EVERYTHING is an opinion. I’ve always thought that the first objective of a reviewer is to put the subject piece (movie, album, book, etc.) into some sort of historical context within its own genre; the second is to inform the reader as to what they can reasonably expect from the book in terms of structure (and whether structure itself forms a sort of argument); and, third, to engage with the generator of the work in a way that demonstrates thorough understanding of the work on its own terms. This third part is by its very nature formed by the reviewer’s point of view. Call that opinion, if you will. Whether reviews are by their very nature “opinion pieces” will depend on your definitions of both forms of writing. Unless you want to call every single written piece an opinion, in which case you’re likely to run into a whole heap of trouble with vast swaths of contemporary fundamentalism and evangelicalism.
You have said it all. Trump is evil, what he does is evil. Evangelicals have enabled him to continue his evil. His followers are blinded by his fake Christianity. He, too, will have to answer to his Maker in the end. These are scary times, and its up to our Christian leaders to speak up and do what’s right. We can no longer be complacent about what is happening. May God help us.
Evangelicals used to be distinct from fundamentalists, mostly because of their intellectual cred. Somehow I guess the “elites” winnowed themselves put away from the rest, who submitted to become fundyvangelicals. . .
Here’s what I learned with a little searching about the most recent election,
“Six in ten white Catholics and white mainline/non-evangelical Protestants also voted for Trump.”*
Well that’s awkward for someone determined to lay the blame at the feet of the “other.” It’s all “their” fault is easy and feels good, but it’s rarely true…
*https://prri.org/spotlight/religion-and-the-2024-presidential-election/
That same source says 81% of white evangelical protestants voted for Trump, vs 60% of white Catholics and 57% of white non-evangelical protestants. Thus evangelicals voted for Trump by a significantly higher percentage. (Note that these were preliminary results from exit polls.)
Thank you Jeff Munroe! I appreciate your words, thoughts, and faith behind the words.
Your words clearly got under the skin of the evangelical apologists in the group, who promptly demonstrated exactly what you described.
While late to the party a few comments would seem to be in order.
First, it is possible that both Du Mez and Kristian are right, that both are responding to the current landscape of evangelical/Evagelical.
That’s the second point: that there is both a spiritual posture, commonly denoted as “evangelical” (lower case) and social/political reality or public posture, the Evangelical (upper case). The former is broader, much broader than the latter. Of importance here, the failings of each posture in turn ask for a different sort of engagement or critique. Kristian leans to the former, Du Mez to the latter.
And third, evangelicals (lower case) are no more to blame for the outrage of this administration than are mainline Christians, say in the RCA, which polling has shown also voted in 2024 for the current President ..