What impact did the 9/11 attacks have on Christianity in America? Why did many Christians support the election of Donald Trump?
In the 1990s, American evangelical Christianity shifted toward a less militant concept of masculinity. But, this was short-lived. Kristin Du Mez claims that 9/11 caused an immediate return to the militaristic masculinity of decades past, ultimately culminating in the 2016 election of Donald Trump.
Read more for Du Mez’s perspective of American evangelical Christianity in the 21st century.
The Immediate Impact of 9/11
Du Mez is a history and gender studies professor at Calvin University. Her critique of American evangelical Christianity in the 21st century begins with 9/11. She contends that the al-Qaeda attacks caused evangelicals to return to an aggressive, militant masculinity to fend off perceived threats from Islamic terrorists. To show as much, she examines evangelical authors’ writings about masculinity and how to raise masculine boys in the wake of 9/11.
As Du Mez relates, evangelical author John Eldredge argued in 2001 that instead of being gentle leaders, evangelical men ought to emulate God—whom he took to be the ultimate warrior, not a meek noncombatant. According to Eldredge, violence was constitutive of masculinity, a message that resonated with evangelicals in the war against terror following 9/11.
(Shortform note: In the decades since 9/11, some evangelicals have attempted to push back against the conception of God as an ultimate warrior. For example, in Dane Ortlund’s 2020 book, Gentle and Lowly, he portrays Jesus’ core character as “gentle and lowly at heart,” thus emphasizing the meekness that Eldredge disavows. According to Ortlund, Jesus (and therefore God) is closer to a tender, loving father than a violent warrior.)
Du Mez also highlights two other authors who in 2001 provided advice tailored to evangelical fathers seeking to raise Eldredge’s future warriors. For example, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson advised evangelical fathers to foster their sons’ natural aggression, which he considered a fundamental benefit of masculinity. Douglas Wilson went a step further, arguing that men were entitled to the God-given right of dominion—that is, the right to power in certain domains, such as in the home and the church. Consequently, he reasoned that parents should teach their boys to embrace their internal drive to conquer and rule, which included teaching them how to physically subdue their adversaries in a fight, whether with fists or with guns.
(Shortform note: Although Du Mez focuses heavily on Wilson’s belief that boys should learn how to conquer through fighting, other reviewers of Wilson’s work on child-rearing note that it encompasses a wide range of topics, some of which are less contentious. For example, Wilson also provides strategies for instilling a strong work ethic in boys, as well as teaching them how to wisely manage their money.)
Evangelicalism in the US Military Post 9/11
According to Du Mez, evangelical influence within the US military exploded in the years following 9/11, as evangelicals sought to promote their aggressive model of masculinity in a military context. She argues that two evangelical organizations were crucial in purveying evangelical ideas in the military—namely, Focus on the Family and New Life Church.
Organization #1: Focus on the Family
Du Mez relates that in the 1990s, Dobson moved the Focus on the Family headquarters to Colorado Springs, the home of the US Air Force Academy. In Colorado Springs, Dobson molded his organization into a tool for conservative ends, at times associating himself with the Academy.
For example, in 2004 Dobson mobilized evangelicals in South Dakota to support conservative candidate John Thune, who opposed legalized abortion and gay marriage, ultimately helping Thune narrowly win the election for Senator. In another instance, Dobson helped defend Roy Moore, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, for refusing to heed a federal order to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from the state judicial building’s rotunda. And, according to Du Mez, Dobson was strengthening his ties with the Air Force Academy all the while, even having the Academy parachute in the “Keys of heaven” to the Focus on the Family headquarters.
(Shortform note: Since the 2020 publication of Jesus and John Wayne, Dobson has continued to support conservative social issues through another similar organization, the Dr. James Dobson Family Institute. For example, some of his 2023 newsletters included articles opposing gender-affirming care for children and the LGTBQ+ community while explicitly endorsing Christian nationalism—the view that Christianity is central to US national identity.)
Organization #2: New Life Church
While Focus on the Family had more subtle ties to the military, the evangelical megachurch New Life Church made its militarism explicit. Its founding pastor Ted Haggard modeled the church itself around the military—the church’s sanctuary matched the Air Force Academy’s color scheme, and its lobby featured a towering bronze sculpture of an angel brandishing a sword. New Life Church considered itself a “spiritual battleground” whose congregants were warriors for Christ.
(Shortform note: New Life Church’s militaristic undertones also influence evangelical theology more generally, as evangelicals typically believe that everyone participates in spiritual warfare where the enemies are Satan and his agents. According to this view, demonic forces often subject people to temptation, requiring vigilance and prayer to resist these supernatural influences.)
Du Mez relates that, to increase its influence inside the Air Force, New Life Church employed a wide array of strategies. For example, teams of pastors greeted cadets at the Air Force Academy’s chapel and invited them to Monday night Bible studies. Additionally, Du Mez reports that flyers for frequent screenings of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ were spread throughout the dining hall.
(Shortform note: Today, New Life Church in Colorado Springs continues to enjoy a tight-knit relationship with the armed forces—it has several ministries geared toward military members and bills itself as the “home church” for these members and their families. To continue attracting members of the military, the church offers weekly prayer time every Sunday that specifically seeks to pray for embattled soldiers worldwide.)
The Election of Donald Trump
The war mentality that evangelicals developed in the wake of 9/11, Du Mez writes, helped fuel evangelical support of Trump in the 2016 election. We’ll examine how Barack Obama’s perceived attacks on religious liberty further entrenched a sense of embattlement among evangelicals that would ultimately propel them to embrace Trump as the fulfillment of their militaristic view of masculinity.
The Precursor: Obama’s Alleged Attacks on Religious Liberty
Du Mez writes that Obama angered evangelicals even before his 2008 election. For example, she points to Obama’s qualified defense of his pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who used the phrase “God damn America” in a sermon railing against the US’s increased militarization. Because he defended Reverend Wright, evangelicals viewed Obama as lacking in the patriotism and love of country that they so dearly valued.
However, this sense of evangelical embattlement grew yet stronger during Obama’s administration, as evangelicals viewed many of his policies as attacks on religious liberty. For instance, Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated coverage of contraceptives—a provision that, according to evangelical Christians, endangered their right to refuse to participate in practices contrary to their religion. More importantly, Du Mez notes that evangelicals often directed their ire toward Obama for the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that federally legalized same-sex marriage, again viewing it as an affront to religious freedom.
The Culmination: The Election of Donald Trump
In light of evangelical frustration toward Obama, it initially seemed that an evangelical conservative—such as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, or Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas—would win the Republican nomination. Yet, despite the surplus of evangelical candidates to choose from, Trump—a candidate who, Du Mez points out, was a thrice-married adulterer, contrary to evangelicals’ professed family values—was growing popular among evangelicals in July 2015. According to polls, 20% of white evangelicals preferred Trump as the Republican candidate, compared with 12% for Huckabee, 11% for Jeb Bush, and 5% for Cruz.
However, unlike the other evangelical candidates, Trump explicitly tapped into the militaristic aspect of evangelicalism. To show as much, Du Mez points to Trump’s 2020 convocation speech at Liberty University—the US’s largest evangelical university, founded by Jerry Falwell Sr. During his speech, Trump asserted that Christianity was “under siege” and he would protect it by vastly strengthening the military. Only three days later, Liberty President Jerry Falwell Jr. became the first prominent evangelical leader to endorse Trump, claiming that America needed a leader, not a Sunday school teacher—an endorsement that earned Trump the support of 37% of evangelicals, according to polls.
Du Mez acknowledges that Trump experienced initial pushback from evangelical leaders. For instance, Russell Moore—editor-in-chief of Christianity Today and former President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission—criticized Trump’s anti-immigrant mentality and likened him to a “Bronze Age warlord.” But most evangelical leaders eventually fell into line: James Dobson endorsed Trump just before the election, and Wayne Grudem, co-editor of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, endorsed Trump as a “morally good choice” and a patriot.
Du Mez notes that the result of Trump’s support from leaders like Dobson and Grudem was striking: 81% of white evangelicals voted for Trump, propelling him to victory in a narrow race over Hillary Clinton. And, Du Mez argues, support for Trump didn’t involve hypocrisy for evangelicals but an expression of their deepest values—namely, the brash, militant masculinity that had been growing stronger for the past century.
