We now come to the final post of my book analysis of Kristin Kobes Du Mez’s book, Jesus and John Wayne. I’ve gone through most of her book, so in this post I simply want to make some concluding comments regarding, not only her book as a whole, but also what I fear is the state of (for lack of a better term) “American Christianity” today.
Links to the Previous Posts
Part 2: (Chapters 1-2) Fundies, Billy Graham, and Communism
Part 3: (Chapters 3-4) Schlafly, ERA, Gothard, Dobson
Part 4: (Chapters 5-6) LaHaye, Falwell and Ronald Reagan
Part 5: (Chapters 7-8) Oliver North and Bill Clinton
Part 6: (Chapters 9-10) Promise Keepers and Purity Culture
Part 7: (Chapters 11-13) Mark Driscoll and the Iraq War
Part 8: (Chapter 14) Evangelicals, Obama, and Palin
Part 9: (Chapter 15) Election 2016, Hillary, and Trump
Chapter 16 and KDM’s Conclusion: A Summary and My Reaction
In the final chapter, KDM runs back through the laundry list of the Evangelical leaders she highlights in her book, as well as a few more developments during Trump’s presidency. There is no need to rehash it all: Mark Driscoll, Doug Wilson, John Piper, John MacArthur, Roy Moore, Stormy Daniels, the Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings, Ted Haggard, a scandal involving a guy named C.J. Mahaney and his Sovereign Grace Church, Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, Doug Wilson (again), and Bob Jones University.
KDM even notes the sexual allegations against Bill Hybels of Willowcreek Community Church. According to KDM, even though Hybels represented “the more progressive wing of Evangelicalism” and was actually an egalitarian, he was “a man known for wielding power” who exported his churches “top-down leadership structure” to thousands of seeker-friendly congregations. Translation? Even the more “progressive” Evangelicals are still power-hungry, sexually abusive white men! She ends the chapter by accusing all Evangelicalism of being really no different than the most extreme examples of the likes of Mark Driscoll and Doug Wilson. All of it just reinforces “Christian masculinity,” “patriarchy and submission,” “sex and power” (294).
In her short conclusion to her book, KDM continues what can be described as simply a left-wing political hack job against Evangelicalism en masse. Evangelicals are gun owners and support the second amendment—bad! Evangelicals hate immigrants because they support border security—bad! And Evangelical churches “promote masculine authority and the subordination of women.” Now, before you say, “Well, that is true” (and in some cases, I agree, it is true!), consider what KDM puts forth as evidence of this.
She says that in Sunday schools, boys learn to be superheroes for Christ and girls to be beautiful princesses, and in church youth groups, boys are trained to use guns and bows, while girls are taught how to apply makeup, shop, and decorate cakes. Maybe I’m just out of the loop, but I have never heard of any church Sunday school or youth group doing those things. Are there probably some that have done that? Maybe, but even if that is the case in some churches, let’s be honest—that’s not exactly the best example of “promoting patriarchy.”
KDM also laments that on Mother’s Day, churches hand out flowers, sweet pastries, or poems to women, while on Father’s Day, they have grill-outs and have “dad contests,” where men do things like toss footballs, with the winner getting a box of steaks. She doesn’t like Hobby Lobby stores, either, because they have sections in their stores that sell items catered more toward girls and women (wall plaques, coffee tumblers, beauty cosmetics), and then other sections catered toward boys and men (cowboy stuff, sports stuff, army stuff). Excuse me for getting a bit sarcastic, but exactly how is giving flowers to mothers on Mother’s Day enforcing the subordination of women? And how is grilling out promoting “masculine authority”? And Hobby Lobby has different sections in their stores catered to men and women? Oh, the oppressive patriarchy!
Let’s just be honest, KDM isn’t objecting to actual instances of actual misogyny. She’s objecting to the reality that, generally speaking, men and women tend to have different interests. She seems to think that acknowledging basic differences between men and women amounts to patriarchy and the oppression of women. I’m sorry, but that is just stupid. If you don’t think so, try giving your wife a wrench set for Mother’s Day or your husband the newest line of cosmetic products from Kylie Jenner for Father’s Day, and see how that goes over. Here’s my advice to KDM: If you are going to argue that Evangelicalism promotes patriarchy and the oppression of women, you might want to cut out the more nonsensical claims. Giving mothers flowers is not oppression. Giving fathers steaks is not patriarchy.
KDM ends her book by restating her ultimate conclusion about Evangelicalism by claiming that white Evangelicalism is really just a “cult of masculinity” that emulates men like John Wayne, William Wallace, Ronald, Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Jordan Peterson, and Donald Trump and has forged ties with Vladimir Putin, who “flaunts his bare-chested masculinity” (I’m sorry, but what???)
…and Donald Trump represents what Evangelicals have long valued and wanted for over the past century.
The Problems with “Jesus and John Wayne” as a Whole
I want to begin my concluding thoughts on KDM’s book by, once again, reiterating that when it comes to most of the specific facts she brings up in the book about the various scandals and charlatans within Evangelicalism over the past few decades, she is absolutely, 100% spot on. There are far too many examples of truly horrible behavior by various Evangelical leaders—that is tragic and shameful. I’ve seen a number of reviews and endorsements of the book in which people have said that they had no idea of much of what KDM brings up in her book, and so on that level, I suppose the book serves a purpose.
My problem with her book, though, does not lie there. It lies elsewhere.
First, there is the constant uncritical broad brushing of all “white Evangelicals” with the sins of a few really bad people. Critical-thinking adults would instantly call out such sophomoric stereotyping if a book claimed that “all Catholicism” really is just a “cult of pedophilia molestation,” or “all black Protestants” are anti-Semitic homophobes like Al Sharpton, or “all Muslims” are violent terrorists. Most people are wise enough to see that to depict entire groups with the sins of the few is simply wrong. Heck, KDM herself condemns certain Evangelical leaders who did just that in regard to Islam. Yet, she turns around and does the exact same thing.
Second, there is the abject failure to consider actual historical, cultural, and economic factors that have led Evangelicals as a whole to hold certain political positions. The irony is that KDM is a supposed historian, and yet she ignores these things in favor reducing everything to oversimplistic, uncritical, and ambiguous reasons like patriarchy, white supremacy, and anti-feminist. Why did Evangelicals vote for Reagan? He portrayed as a macho cowboy! Why have Evangelicals been against abortion? They hate women! Why did they vote for Trump! They are all white supremacists and want to maintain the patriarchy! I’m sorry, but that kind of rhetoric is not the argumentation of a historian—it’s the propaganda of a political partisan.
Third (and I just hinted at this), there is the questionable way KDM assesses that “white Evangelicalism” has corrupted the Christian faith. At no time in her book does she actually use the Gospel or the canon of historical Christian teaching to show just how Evangelicalism corrupted the faith. Instead, her “measuring rod” is modern day left-wing politics. Simply put, her basic claim is that “white Evangelicalism” doesn’t jive with the Democrat party platform, therefore it is a corruption of the Christian faith. To the point, KDM’s Christianity is left-wing progressive politics. I’m sorry, that’s not Christianity. It is just as much a corruption of the Christian faith as the right-wing political partisans KDM calls out in her book.
Five years ago, when I wrote my book, The Heresy of Ham, I also wrote countless blog posts about Ken Ham and his young earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis. Now, Ken Ham is horrible in his interpretation of Genesis 1-11, and just as bad in his scientific claims. This is true for the YECist movement as a whole, and most of my work on the YECist movement addresses those two things. But if you were to boil down what I felt was the worst things about Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, it would be the exact same three things I’m criticizing KDM for in her book.
When I wrote on YECism, I made it a point not to broadbrush all Evangelicals as brainless Hamites. In fact, my goal in my book was to educate Evangelicals about both biblical interpretation and science, and then to warn them about the mean-spirited and deceitful tactics of Ken Ham. I didn’t want to be guilty of the very thing Ken Ham routinely does regarding academics, liberals…or anyone who disagrees with him.
Also, I made it a point, both in Heresy of Ham and my other book, Christianity and the (R)evolution in Worldviews, to understand and explain (among many other things) the historical factors were that have led to so many Evangelicals either rejecting evolutionary theory or embracing YECism. I refused to just reduce everything to oversimplistic caricatures. Again, I didn’t want to do Evangelicals what Ham routinely does with anyone who disagrees with him.
Finally, I made it a point to root my criticism of Ken Ham (and not “Evangelicals” as a whole) in solid biblical interpretation and historical Christian teaching. In addition, I made is absolutely clear that the core problem I had with Ham wasn’t that he believed the universe was 6,000 years old or that he believed Genesis 1-11 was literal historical narrative (even though he is completely wrong on both counts). Rather, the core problem I had with him—the reason why I called the book The Heresy of Ham—was that he was judging and condemning Christians based on things that were not what I called “Creedal fundamentals” of historical Christianity. Not only that, but it was clear to me that his real concern wasn’t even proper biblical interpretation or science, but rather with winning the culture war. And, as anyone who has ever read Ken Ham can attest to, as far as he is concerned, real Christianity is all about right-wing conservative politics. As I’ve said elsewhere, he has confused the Kingdom of God with the GOP party platform.
To that end, I cannot state it any clearer than to say KDM is guilty of the exact same thing as Ken Ham. She, like Ham, sees herself fighting a political culture war, and it is abundantly clear that her overall thesis really is that white Evangelicalism is a corruption of Christianity because it doesn’t embrace left-wing political views. And that, I propose, is an indication of what really is corrupting Christianity in American today: the politicization of Christianity. This is something that both conservative-Christians and progressive-Christians are guilty of far too often.
To be clear, some Christians just have more “conservative” ideas regarding how the government should be run and some Christians have more “progressive” ideas—that’s fine. But let me suggest that the moment you hyphenate your Christianity with a certain political adjective at the beginning of the way you identify yourself, perhaps your faith really isn’t Christianity, but rather something more akin to political idolatry. Perhaps the apostle Paul has something to say to you: “If anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!” (Gal 1:9).
So yes, modern American Evangelicalism does share in the guilt of politicizing the Christian faith. And yes, many of the bad things that KDM highlights in her book has its roots in this very thing. But she is absolutely wrong to suggest that Evangelicalism has corrupted the faith (and fractured the nation) because it hasn’t been sufficiently politically liberal enough. The fact that KDM makes that very argument shows that she is equally as guilty as the “white Evangelicalism” she rails against. And the fact that her book, a politically-slanted as it is, has been such a best-seller, shouldn’t really be a cause for rejoicing. It is a further indictment regarding just how much “progressive-Christians” have politicized their faith just as much as “conservative-Christians.” People flock to books that feed their own political bias.
So, can Jesus and John Wayne teach you something about the bad actors and dark corners within modern Evangelicalism? Absolutely. Many of the people KDM criticizes in her book deserve it. I’m certainly not a fan of them. But don’t swallow her overall argument whole, because, like I said in my first post, this is not a Christian criticism of some of the sins within Evangelicalism. It’s an uncritical, oversimplistic, left-wing political hit job. If you are a Christian, even if you (like me) agree with KDM’s criticism of the many bad actors in Evangelicalism, I hope you are fair-minded enough to acknowledge that there are some major flaws in her book. Yes, the book is factually true about many of the charlatans in Evangelicalism, but it is not truthful in its overall presentation. It is fodder for political partisans who have mistaken their political party for the Kingdom of God.
***
It just so happens that KDM’s book has just come out in paperback and KDM has written a new preface for the paperback edition (that you can actually read in the “Look Inside” preview on Amazon). I was going to write a “bonus post” in which I go through her new preface to reinforce the points that I made here in this one. I think I’m going to forego that, though. Her entire preface is baldly political from start to finish, and to attempt to show how she has let her political bias affect her take on Christianity would mean to dive into the still-brewing political cesspool of emotionally-charged knee-jerk reactions of modern American politics. The gist of her new preface is basically this: Trump is bad and Evangelicals like Trump because he’s bad…therefore Evangelicals are bad.
I do, though, want to mention just one thing. One of KDM’s main criticisms of Evangelicals in the book is basically their politicization of the Christian faith and how they look to Trump as their “new high priest” (the title of chapter 14). I don’t think most Evangelical Christians view Trump as a religious figure, but I do agree that, by and large, Evangelicals have blurred the lines between Christianity and conservative politics. But for that matter, I have seen the exact same kind of blurring between faith and politics coming from “progressive” Christians and many “ex-Evangelicals” over the past few years.
The last paragraph in KDM’s new preface is a prime example. In it, she talks about Joe Biden’s speech on the night he was elected, and how he quoted the Bible and called for healing in America. I could highlight many of Biden’s past sins and questionable behavior and comments, but that’s not important. All politicians have their share of dirt and virtually all politicians quote the Bible from time to time in their political speeches. That’s life.
What I find ironic is KDM’s comments about Biden’s speech. She writes, “If this healing and restoration is to take place, the militancy at the heart of conservative white evangelicalism must be confronted. Understanding the history that has brought us to this point is critical to this process, and to charting a new course forward. The future of the faith and the nation depend on it.”
I can’t help but notice that she is taking her cue regarding what will save Christianity AND the nation from a politician. She points the finger of blame squarely at “white evangelicalism” because it is politically conservative, and she is looking to a newly-elected liberal politician to chart the course to save the Christian faith and nation. If that isn’t an example of the politicization AND CORRUPTION of the Christian faith, I don’t know what is. And yes, there are many Evangelical leaders who are guilty of that same kind of politicization and corruption of the Christian faith from the other side of the political spectrum. It’s still corruption of the Christian faith, no matter what side of the political aisle it comes from.
How many scripture references did you notice in this book? And; who/what were the major financial sources used to get this book in print and circulated. As a “Moderate” Democrat I can’t help but be discouraged when I see “AOC” being interviewed this week on MSNBC as she rips into Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on the border issues. There were no real solutions offered (that I heard) on her part. All of it was from angry, subjective emotions (of course she was visibly shaken from her experience on Jan.6). And, that’s mostly what I’m observing on both sides…subjective feeling/emotions with no thought out solutions. Then, there’s still the on-going Conspiracy/Conspiracy theory networks right in the middle of it all. Even while I’m writing this I receive a pop up from Tucker Carlson doing that very thing. Keep up the good reviews.
Thanks Larry!
As for your question regarding scripture references–zero. I’m not sure about the book’s financial sources, but I do know it is selling quite well and a lot of “progressives” and “ex-Evangelicals” love it. It preaches to the choir, in that regard, very much like the right-wing stuff that KDM criticizes in her book. I’ve come to the conclusion that for a lot of “progressive” Christians and “conservative” Christians (though, certainly not all), their real religion is their politics.
One of the main themes throughout the Bible is the idea that “you become like what you worship.” If you worship the true God, you are more conformed to his image and become more of a true human being (i.e. the image of Christ)–and you’ll be able to be spiritually discerning, with eyes that see and ears that hear. But if you worship an idol, you become conformed to the image of something that isn’t really human, can’t really see or hear, and is often in the shape of a beast. Hence, idol-worshippers cannot spiritually see or hear, and they become more ruled by their passions (i.e. emotional outbursts, violent “beast-like” tendencies, or slaves to their natural instincts).
Sadly, I think we are witnessing a lot of “political idolatry” these days–and that accounts for a lot of what we are seeing.
Amen to that!
KDM transparently leans liberal-progressive in her politics, yes, but I didn’t get the reductive anti-Evangelicalism vibe that you attribute to her later chapters and the new preface. I personally know members of her family, which remains deeply Evangelical and conservative (and respected in those communities–her brother, for example, is the Trump judicial appointee Jonathan Kobes); she is not estranged from them, she teaches at a well-known Evangelical university, and as far as I know, she still identifies as evangelical. So she’s not an academic outsider; in fact, she wrote Jesus and John Wayne in a conscious departure from her usual audience within the Christian community (hence no scripture references).
So it does seem a stretch to me to call her profile a hack job. It’s polemical, sure, and it focuses narrowly on KDM’s area of expertise, religion and gender issues, to the exclusion of other cultural and economic factors. But on the whole I don’t think it’s unfair. It comes from an informed position within the community in question, and there’s a reason it resonated so well with me and many of my friends, both those who have left Evangelicalism and those who remained.
Hi Ives,
Thanks for the response. I’ll be the first to admit that “hack job” might be a tad strong, but I really was put off by the way the book lambasts “white Evangelicalism” as a whole. I don’t find that helpful. Now, I know firsthand the damage that the kind of “authoritarian streak” she notes within Evangelicalism–I lost two teaching jobs because “new leadership” came into the schools and deemed me a “liberal.” Why? Because I didn’t read Genesis 1-11 as literal history and I certainly didn’t agree with Young Earth Creationism. Because my view on one or two things didn’t jive with these specific leaders, they labeled me a “liberal” who undermined the Bible and who didn’t “submit” to their authority. It was an entire political corruption of Christianity.
But I’m never going to say that “Evangelicalism” ruined my career–those specific bad guys did. I know far too many good, sincere, godly Evangelicals to resort to broadbrushing the whole thing because of the actions of certain corrupt leaders. I think that is very important. I never want to be guilty of the same kind of broadbrushing and politicization of the faith that those bad leaders threw at me.
To be honest, I don’t think I would have had a problem with the book if she had just changed two things: (1) Instead of the current subtitle, have “How Certain Corrupt Evangelical Leaders are Poisoning the Faith and Dividing the Nation;” and (2) Don’t use partisan liberal talking points as the measure as to what in Evangelicalism is corrupted. I never got into “Promise Keepers,” for example, but I just rolled my eyes when she equated their teaching that husbands should love and serve their wives and be involved in their children’s lives as trying to enforce a “soft patriarchy.” That’s pretty lame, in my opinion.
In any case, thanks for the response! I hope what I said makes sense.
I appreciate your response and agree with it. As it happens, I too was once deprived of a job in academia for a difference with the Evangelical party line–specifically, I was a libertarian, and they wanted a teacher able to stomp for DOMA and similar legislation. Several years later, I made the mistake of trying to present a nuanced view on inerrancy while attempting to get a job at a different Evangelical school, and after several circular interviews I’m fairly certain it was that which made my application fall through. Both these exchanges were cordial, and I don’t resent the decisions involved, but they were certainly frustrating to a young Christian teacher in the Bible Belt striving for intellectual honesty.
I wrote a couple of blog posts on my view of inspiration and inerrancy somewhere on this blog! I’d be interested to get your response on those. (You should be able to find them in the search bar–I think there were two).
In retrospect am not surprised that Kristin Kobes Du Mez has her views, as they are basically Calvinism mixed with Leftist politics: https://twitter.com/kkdumez/status/1323399255583793152
And you already covered Calvinism quite well, especially on the Total Depravity bit: http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/the-ways-of-the-worldviews-part-36-john-calvin-and-tulip-yes-total-depravity-predestination-all-that/
BTW, good review and breakdown of this nonsense here, Joel.
Why Evangelicals Defended Trump would have been a better title, at least according to Wikipedia.
“Hi there”, in my Freddie Washington-Welcome Back Kotter voice.
Black Prophetic Protestant tradition here. Surprise, surprise.
Little Rock, eh. LR Catholic? LR Christian? Episcopal Collegiate? Pulaski Academy? Baptist Prep? Mount St. Mary? Yes, that’s a real school in Little Rock. If failed to list your school, I apologize.
TGC, The Gospel Coalition, gives two possible wrong responses to DuMez:
1) Double down on militant masculinity, minus the power to abuse, and
2) Give up on the bible’s teaching on marital roles.
Oh my! What is an evangelical (non-bible term BTW) to do?
A: Be prayerful.
Moving on.
Anne Kennedy uses DuMez’ own words two describe what happened in 2016: “The products Christians consume, shapes the faith they inhabit.” Basically, you are what you eat, or in this case buy, and boy did the evangelicals buy the Duck Dynasty camo.
AK also pulled from DuMez in saying, “Evangelicals are not bound by theology, but by consumerist inclinations.” I guess you are what you buy. That makes me a Nissan Frontier vs a Dodge Ram guy.
Truly, many evangelicals, I cannot capitalize that term, saw the storm, like fine theologian John MacArthur, but turned a deaf ear, until their grassroots congregations made it known who they preferred. Afterall, they had already made the purchase. THe leadership was slow to pick up on it.
Kennedy concludes, evangelicals voted for DJT because they took what they could get. Yeah.
Then, there’s Joel. By far, the most balanced critique on the book I’ve run across, though my peers would not agree. I’ll probably be shunned.
You say JJW is a bad and divisive book, Okay, I get that, but you go on to list five reasons why. Words matter. I agree that the deeper problem is two sides of the same coin. One side idolizes their platform while demonizing the opposition and vice versa. True, because it doesn’t matter who threw the first rock, the window is still broken.
Maybe the southern strategy took 25 years to manifest itself, but the bottom line is, they, the evangelicals, still switched sides. True.
Every group has a few bad apples. Teachers, doctors, first responders, military, even evangelicals, but look at those apples! Dobson, Gothard, LaHaye, Graham, Huckabee, Falwell, Swaggart etc… Does the apple really fall far from the tree?
Agree that the best advice on marriage cones from the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 7 is better than the LaHayes. BTW, John MacArthur, same one mentioned earlier, has an excellent Youtube teaching on this very chapter.
So, after reading chapter 6, you don’t think it’s necessary to explain why “getting tough on crime” is seen as racist, while admitting in your critique, that some politicians have used policies in a racist way, to affect black people? If you want to be taken seriously, you really should explain. We saw this played out in Georgia. Remember?
By chapter 7, you’re no longer at home with evangelicalism. I feel your pain. Sometimes, I didn’t feel at home with the BPP faith. We gave Bill a pass on the misconduct in the WH, chapter 8, but so did evangelicals give DJT pass on the Access Hollywood tape. You are what you buy.
DuMez is way off regarding PK in Tender Warriors. Your critique was spot on. PK was well intended,but went down in flames only after a decade. I have my own thoughts about the “purity culture.” Right idea. Unrealistic execution.
There’s guilt, then there’s guilt by association and Du Mez pulls no punches regarding Driscoll and rightfully so. Same with Swaggart and others.
Remember this” Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up! Talk about beating the drum. With the military style chant, it’s no wonder Roy Moore got as much support as he did. You get what you pay for.
Fake ex-Muslim terrorists, on the evangelical speaking circuit? No wonder I never felt comfortable in LifeWay stores.
You know I couldn’t wait for the Obama years. Yes, 24% of evangelicals went for Obama, but 76% did not, because as Kennedy points out, evangelicals took what they could get, or did they get what they paid for? I’m thinking it’s not the former.
Sarah Palin is no Ann Richards, or Barabara Jordan, or Stacy Abrams. The GOP can do better and I do not mean MTG.
Joel, the birther movement, like it or not, was not odd, it was racist. Simple as that. If mocking the disabled journalist wasn’t enough, a birth certificate wasn’t going to change anyone’s mind. Sorry, you’re definitely out of the loop here.
Thank you for the chart in your critique of chapter 15. I ‘m a chart guy. Loved. The. Chart. HRC either got bad advice, or no advice. Democrats vote Democrat and Republicans vote Republican, 90% of the time, except, 24% of evangelicals went for Obama. Hearts and minds can change.
In the end, the words in the book may be divisive, but the book is not. It needs to be read, shared, and critiqued. Challenging for evangelicals. Refreshing for Christians.
Regarding your comments about politicisation of Christianity, there is as usually an applicable C. S. Lewis quote; specifically from “The Screwtape Letters”.
(For anyone unfamiliar with the Screwtape Letters, it’s written from the perspective of a demon to a demon; this WILL be important):
“Whichever [political view] he adopts, your main task will be the same. Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacifism [the book was set and written in WWII] as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of a partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the “cause”, in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce in favour of the British war-effort or of pacifism. The attitude which you want to guard against is that in which temporal affairs are treated primarily as material for obedience. Once you have made the world an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes and crusades matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours – and the more “religious” on those terms the more securely ours.”
I love CS Lewis. He is 100% correct.
I had a similar-ish experience with him as you. It was reading “The Screwtape Letters” and taking to heart its advice about prayer that allowed me to move past just mentally asserting Christianity and seeing it as a thing that you got into through reason and move onto the emotional and relational aspects that are so important (but so overlooked in much of the Christian teaching I got as a kid).