Book Review: Jesus and John Wayne: How white evangelicals corrupted a faith and fractured a nation by Kristin Kobes Du Mez

Lew Grace
{"title":"Book Review: Jesus and John Wayne: How white evangelicals corrupted a faith and fractured a nation by Kristin Kobes Du Mez","authors":"Lew Grace","doi":"10.1177/07398913221098103g","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"sive and unified could benefit from reading this work. The reflection and discussion questions encourage any reader to consider the experiences of single people in ministry, and in the church more broadly, and respond with care. I read this book through multiple lenses, informed by my own experiences: former church and parachurch ministry staff member (9 years while single, 3 while married), qualitative researcher, congregation member, and wife of a ministry director. Sitting in the pews with this research in my mind, I was stirred to think about the experience of the single woman sitting next to me. It heightened my awareness of how many times the teaching pastor made reference to his own marriage or used marriage as a metaphor. It made me wonder how she was receiving that message, and made me want to find out more about her experience as a single woman in our church. I felt invited to extend Lawson and Carr’s research in my own context, by listening and learning so I can better understand and support. As with any qualitative research, there are a couple of limitations. First, qualitative research has limited generalizability. The authors rightly note that their findings represent the range of participants’ experiences, rather than making claims about the universality of single ministry staff experiences (146). Second, sampling for qualitative research may also limit the generalizability of findings. In this case, Lawson and Carr admit that while they were seeking to have geographic, racial/ethnic, gender and denominational diversity in their sample, “the sample has a high percentage of people serving in larger church contexts, maily in Southern California, with a stronger representation of evangelical congregational settings than mainline church contexts” (148). Thus, they encourage others to “build on this research” in other contexts (148). As stated above, there is also an implicit invitation for the reader, regardless of their context, to informally extend the research by asking the questions provided and listening carefully to the responses. Each reader, church, denomination, parachurch organization, and seminary classroom may ask the core questions of themselves and those around them. “What is it like...? What are the joys....? What are the challenges...?” Perhaps the final question we should add is, “How can we help?”","PeriodicalId":135435,"journal":{"name":"Christian Education Journal: Research on Educational Ministry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Christian Education Journal: Research on Educational Ministry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07398913221098103g","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

sive and unified could benefit from reading this work. The reflection and discussion questions encourage any reader to consider the experiences of single people in ministry, and in the church more broadly, and respond with care. I read this book through multiple lenses, informed by my own experiences: former church and parachurch ministry staff member (9 years while single, 3 while married), qualitative researcher, congregation member, and wife of a ministry director. Sitting in the pews with this research in my mind, I was stirred to think about the experience of the single woman sitting next to me. It heightened my awareness of how many times the teaching pastor made reference to his own marriage or used marriage as a metaphor. It made me wonder how she was receiving that message, and made me want to find out more about her experience as a single woman in our church. I felt invited to extend Lawson and Carr’s research in my own context, by listening and learning so I can better understand and support. As with any qualitative research, there are a couple of limitations. First, qualitative research has limited generalizability. The authors rightly note that their findings represent the range of participants’ experiences, rather than making claims about the universality of single ministry staff experiences (146). Second, sampling for qualitative research may also limit the generalizability of findings. In this case, Lawson and Carr admit that while they were seeking to have geographic, racial/ethnic, gender and denominational diversity in their sample, “the sample has a high percentage of people serving in larger church contexts, maily in Southern California, with a stronger representation of evangelical congregational settings than mainline church contexts” (148). Thus, they encourage others to “build on this research” in other contexts (148). As stated above, there is also an implicit invitation for the reader, regardless of their context, to informally extend the research by asking the questions provided and listening carefully to the responses. Each reader, church, denomination, parachurch organization, and seminary classroom may ask the core questions of themselves and those around them. “What is it like...? What are the joys....? What are the challenges...?” Perhaps the final question we should add is, “How can we help?”
书评:《耶稣和约翰·韦恩:白人福音派如何腐蚀信仰、分裂国家》,作者:Kristin Kobes Du Mez
Sive和unified可以从阅读这本书中受益。反思和讨论的问题鼓励任何读者考虑单身人士在事工和更广泛的教会中的经历,并谨慎回应。我通过自己的经历从多个角度阅读这本书:前教会和副教会事工(单身9年,已婚3年),定性研究员,会众成员,以及一名事工主任的妻子。我坐在教堂的长椅上,脑子里想着这项研究,我被坐在我旁边的单身女性的经历所打动。这让我更加意识到,这位传道牧师有多少次提到自己的婚姻,或者用婚姻作为隐喻。这让我想知道她是如何接受这个信息的,也让我想更多地了解她作为一个单身女性在我们教会的经历。我觉得自己被邀请将劳森和卡尔的研究扩展到我自己的背景下,通过倾听和学习,以便更好地理解和支持。与任何定性研究一样,有一些限制。首先,定性研究的通用性有限。这组作者正确地指出,他们的发现代表了参与者经历的范围,而不是声称单一部门工作人员经历的普遍性(146)。其次,定性研究的抽样也可能限制研究结果的普遍性。在这种情况下,劳森和卡尔承认,虽然他们在样本中寻求地理、种族/民族、性别和教派的多样性,但“样本中有很高比例的人在较大的教会环境中服务,主要在南加州,福音派教会环境比主流教会环境更具代表性”(148)。因此,他们鼓励其他人在其他情况下“建立这项研究”(148)。如上所述,这也是对读者的一种含蓄的邀请,不管他们的背景如何,通过提出所提供的问题并仔细倾听回答来非正式地扩展研究。每个读者、教会、宗派、副教会组织和神学院教室都可以问自己和周围人的核心问题。“那是什么样子……?”有什么乐趣....?挑战是什么?”也许我们应该补充的最后一个问题是,“我们能提供什么帮助?”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信