“Like [John] Wayne, the heroes who best embodied militant Christian masculinity were those unencumbered by traditional Christian virtues. In this way, militant masculinity linked religious and secular conservatism, helping to secure an alliance with profound political ramifications. For many evangelicals, these militant heroes would come to define not only Christian manhood but Christianity itself.”

Critics of conservative evangelical culture often see such attitudes as just the “hypocrisy of conservative Christians” (128). For Du Mez, they signify the emergence of militant masculinity within conservative evangelicalism.

“Through religious merchandising and with the help of celebrity pitchmen like [Billy] Sunday himself, they effectively replaced traditional denominational authorities with the authority of the market and the power of consumer choice.”

From the beginning of the history of conservative evangelicals in Jesus and John Wayne, modern marketing has been intertwined with conservative evangelicalism. The Development of an Evangelical Consumerist Culture later played a major role in developing evangelical support for Donald Trump.

“Not all evangelicals in Graham’s day embraced such patriarchal teachings. Some believed Christ’s atonement had nullified any ‘curse’ placed on Eve in the Book of Genesis, opening the way to egalitarian gender roles; in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, evangelicals in this tradition had been enthusiastic proponents of women’s rights.”

Despite the emergence of a distinct conservative evangelical culture active in politics, evangelicalism is not inherently politically conservative or liberal. Instead, throughout modern US history, major rifts have occurred between liberal and conservative evangelicalism.

“For evangelicals, family values politics were deeply intertwined with racial politics, and both were connected to evangelicals’ understanding of the nation and its role on the global stage.”

Conservative evangelical culture, especially the intersection of faith, politics, and national identity, encompasses many different social and cultural beliefs and stances. Most significantly, personal moral issues and national politics deeply connect with each other. This makes issues of sexuality and gender matters of national security.

“The Vietnam War was pivotal to the formation of an emerging evangelical identity. For many Americans who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s, Vietnam demolished myths of American greatness and goodness. American power came to be viewed with suspicion, if not revulsion, and a pervasive antimilitarism took hold. Evangelicals, however, drew the opposite lesson: it was the absence of American power that led to catastrophe.”

The way that the personal connects to the political is that evangelicals blame national problems, like the US defeat in the Vietnam War, on breakdowns in masculinity and patriarchal authority in homes. This is why “a defense of white patriarchy emerged as a unifying thread across this range of issues” (33).

“Proper authority structured business as well; the employer wielded God-given authority over employees. In this way, proponents of ‘biblical law’ married ‘traditional’ gender roles to unrestrained, free-market capitalism. It was a match made in heaven.”

This is one example of how the theology and cultural beliefs of conservative evangelical Christians became a basis for political beliefs. They broadly applied the ideas of family values and masculine authority to modern issues not explicitly addressed in the Bible itself.

“For both [James] Dobson and [Bill] Gothard, the problems of the modern family, and of society writ large, could be traced to the erosion of patriarchal power. Within both separatist and ‘respectable’ wings of modern evangelicalism, then, a shared defense of patriarchy contributed to an emerging cultural identity, and to a growing commitment to political activism. Over time, this alliance would begin to dictate the boundaries of evangelicalism itself.”

The emergence of militant masculinity is a major element of the conservative evangelical culture Du Mez describes. Ideas of patriarchy and authority, Du Mez argues, inform conservative evangelicals’ theological, social, and political worldviews.

“[Jerry] Falwell fashioned a Christianity that was well suited to this local context—one that was anticommunist, pro-segregationist, and infused throughout with a militant masculinity.”

Southern culture and history is a major factor behind the rise of conservative white evangelical culture, even though it eventually became a national movement. In particular, Southern evangelicals tended to “define Christian manhood in a manner that sanctified aggression” (17).

“In 1980, the election widely hailed as the moment the Christian Right came into its own, evangelical voters bypassed the candidate who shared their faith tradition in favor of the one whose image and rhetoric more closely aligned with their values and aspirations.”

The disconnect between evangelical Christian religious allegiances and the politics of the Religious Right is evident not only in the rise of Donald Trump but as early as the 1980 election. Support for Ronald Reagan, even though he was not an evangelical Christian like Jimmy Carter, exhibited The Contrast Between the Practiced and Lived Values of Evangelicals.

“Women, children, churches, and nations all needed masculine decision makers; America was great only when its men were great. Tragically, however, a pernicious anti-hero syndrome plagued the nation.”

In the conservative evangelical worldview, masculinity is not simply a matter for family values and personal morality. It is also vital for the health of the nation itself.

“Fox News hawked a nostalgic vision where white men still dominated, where feminists and other liberals were demonized, and where a militant masculinity and sexualized femininity offered a vision for the way things ought to be. White evangelicals were drawn to the network, and the network, in turn, shaped evangelicalism.”

One way that white conservative evangelicalism reinforces itself and thrives is through the development of an evangelical consumerist culture. Arguably, outfits like Fox News are even more important than churches in helping maintain the networks that sustain the culture.

“Unfortunately, the church was part of the problem. Failing to present the true Jesus, it instead depicted him ‘as a meek and gentle milk-toast character’—a man who never could have inspired ‘brawny fishermen like Peter to follow him.’ It was time to replace this ‘Sunday school Jesus’ with a warrior Jesus.”

Presentations of Jesus as a masculine, aggressive warrior are a dramatic aspect of conservative evangelical culture. This is a direct sign of the emergence of militant masculinity among conservative evangelicals.

“Like ‘servant leadership’ and complementarian theology, the purity movement enabled evangelicals to reassert patriarchal authority in the face of economic, political, and social change.”

Du Mez suggests that conservative evangelicalism was shaped by influential leaders like Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell. However, major external influences like the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the rise of the 1960s feminist movement also helped shape conservative evangelicals’ beliefs and who they perceived as threats.

“Evangelicalism had never completely abandoned its Cold War militarism, and those who had become unsettled by the ‘soft patriarchy’ of the 1990s men’s movement were primed for this moment.”

The 1990s, during which organizations like the Promise Keepers emerged, was a time when conservative evangelicals attempted to moderate their views on gender roles while still preserving a concept of patriarchal authority. However, this changed once the War on Terror had replaced the Cold War in evangelicals’ minds. This demonstrates the extent to which conservative evangelical culture is defined by those it considers threats.

“As militant masculinity took hold across evangelicalism, it helped bind together those on the fringes of the movement with those closer to the center, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish the margins from the mainstream.”

The development of an evangelical consumerist culture was not just about how evangelical culture developed and reinforced its beliefs. It was also about how radical views became accepted within the evangelical mainstream.

“On the part of evangelical leaders, at the very least, fear of Islam appeared to be nothing more than an attempt to drum up support for the militant faith they were hawking.”

In the post-9/11 era, Muslims became the new outsider threat to conservative evangelicals, in much the same way that communists were before the Cold War. The existence of such enemies was essential for the emergence of militant masculinity among conservative evangelicals.

“When civilians become the leading militarists, the very concept of civilian control of the military loses its potency.”

The militancy of the Religious Right was not just rhetorical. It had tangible consequences for the US military, which conservative evangelicals from outside the military made an effort to influence.

“Although white evangelicals and black Protestants shared similar views on a number of theological and moral issues, the black Protestant tradition was suffused with a prophetic theology that clashed with white evangelicals’ Christian nationalism.”

Race is another category of analysis through which Du Mez examines the Religious Right. This leads to what Du Mez describes as “the problem of whiteness” (6). It is also a prominent example of how political and social positions can divide conservative evangelicals from other Christians on the level of theology.

“The warrior as a model of Christian manhood remained ubiquitous, and a militaristic view of Christian masculinity went largely unchallenged in conservative evangelical circles.”

The emergence of militant masculinity helped shape the expected gender role of men fundamentally in conservative white evangelical culture. Men had the “sacred role of protector” (185), which placed women in the role of the subordinate needing protection.

“The first African American president, the sea change in LGBTQ rights, the apparent erosion of religious freedom—coupled with looming demographic changes and the declining religious loyalty of their own children—heightened the sense of dread among white evangelicals.”

Du Mez consistently argues that white conservative evangelicals often benefited when they were in a “posture of embattlement” (249). Such embattlement improved the support they received and gave them increased motivation.

“With the forces of evil allied against them, evangelicals were looking for a man who would fight for them, a man whose testosterone might lead to recklessness and excess here or there, but that was all part of the deal.”

This is how Du Mez explains conservative evangelical support for Donald Trump, despite his bad record in practicing family values and his questionable adherence to Christianity. The contrast between the practiced and lived values of evangelicals, which evangelical support for Trump embodies, demonstrates how “evangelicalism itself entails a broader set of deeply held values communicated through symbol, ritual, and political allegiances” (297).

“However, for many evangelicals, Donald Trump did not represent the betrayal of many of the values they had come to hold dear. His testosterone-fueled masculinity aligned remarkably well with that long championed by conservative evangelicals.”

Support for Trump is a sign of the emergence of militant masculinity. Like Barry Goldwater, Oliver North, and Ronald Reagan, Trump aligns wholeheartedly with the conservative evangelical cause and projects a public image that appeals to their sense of militarism and masculinity.

“Within their own churches and organizations, evangelicals had elevated and revered men who exhibited the same traits of rugged and even ruthless leadership that President Trump now paraded on the national stage. Too often, they had also turned a blind eye to abuses of power in the interest of propping up patriarchal authority.”

Du Mez suggests that one unfortunate result of conservative evangelicals’ embrace of patriarchy is the proliferation of allegations of sexual abuse. Another related result has been the abusive treatment of subordinates that leaders like Mark Driscoll exercise.