In the book, Kobes du Mez draws back the curtain on the assumption that American evangelicalism has developed its theological emphases and ecclesial ethics in some sort of vacuum outside of cultural influence - that it is not just as вЂњadjectivalвЂќ as any other sort of contextual theology. What Kristin Kobes du Mez accomplished in Jesus and John Wayne is tracing a history of American white, masculine, evangelical theology and to identify the historical, cultural, and political forces that influenced, guided, and focused its theological emphases for decades. As if these white, masculine voices are not equally subjective and focused on particular issues. вЂњThose'' voices, it is argued, are too influenced by their own subjective viewpoints and focus too much on one or two aspects of theology to be taken as seriously as the other (white and masculine) voices that have dominated for centuries. Since white, masculine voices have been privileged in the field of theology for centuries (or since voices were assumed to be white and male, regardless of the truth of that assumption), any attempt to equally privilege latinx, black, female, LGBTQ+, Asian, Indigenous, or any other perspective alongside those voices is often resisted.

The reason is that these are assumed - the вЂњmythical normвЂќ of theologies, as it were.

You may notice (as I did) a couple of categories that are missing from these вЂњadjectivalвЂќ theologies: white theology and masculine theology. While reading the assignment, I realized that contextual theologies are essentially theologies with an adjective placed in front: feminist theology, womanist theology, latinx theology, LGBTQ+ theology, liberation theology, black liberation theology, etc. It was in graduate school that I first heard the phrase вЂњcontextual theologies.вЂќ I was intrigued since context - both cultural and historical - is crucial to understanding theology.

Critique of jesus and john wayne