Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
What about Breakfast at Tiffany’s?

What about Breakfast at Tiffany’s?

Last updated on: September 5, 2024 at 5:47 pm by Fred Clark

0 Comments

What about Breakfast at Tiffany’s? 2024-09-05T17:47:20-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

So we’re still discussing Matthew Avery Sutton’s essay “Redefining the History and Historiography” of American evangelical Christianity. Here, again, is Sutton’s paragraph summarizing his conclusions — a paragraph that will spark plenty of arguments, and not just among academic historians:

I argue that post–World War II evangelicalism is best defined as a white, patriarchal, nationalist religious movement made up of Christians who seek power to transform American culture through conservative-leaning politics and free-market economics. Contemporary evangelicalism is the direct descendent of early twentieth-century fundamentalism, North and South. Both movements are distinct from Antebellum forms of Christianity. There is no multi-century evangelical throughline.

The contention that late 20th- and 21st-century “evangelicalism” is its own, distinct thing and not simply the continuation of a centuries-old tradition clashes with white evangelicals’ primitivism — their desire to see themselves as the true heirs of true Christianity, keepers of the flame that has burned since the first century. “Primitivism” is, in a sense, evangelicals’ version of a claim of apostolic succession.

Jake Randolph described this part of the argument as “the classic Lumper vs. Splitter debate.” Sutton, he said, was taking the “splitter” side — arguing that the form of white evangelical Christianity that was created after second World War can’t be “lumped” together with earlier, very different forms of revivalist, biblicist Protestantism from earlier eras. The Lumpers will strike back on that point, and this argument is likely to continue for quite a while.

But the angriest responses to Sutton’s piece, so far, have come from those who think he’s too much of a Lumper himself. Sutton’s definition of contemporary evangelicalism as “a white, patriarchal, nationalist religious movement made up of Christians who seek power to transform American culture through conservative-leaning politics and free-market economics” is too sweeping, his critics say. This criticism is basically a hashtag-NOT-ALL reply — #NOTALLEVANGELICALS are white, patriarchal nationalists who seek power to transform American culture through conservative-leaning politics and free-market economics.

This criticism, in other words, comes from the same place of personal offendedness as hashtag-not-all arguments. And it’s ultimately based on a kind of hostile pedantry that pretends not to understand how normal people normally communicate. Someone will observe, for example, that Texas is a conservative, Republican state. They will make this observation because it’s true, but others will angrily object that #NotAllTexans! and don’t you know that there are 20 times more liberals in Texas than there are in Vermont and this is Beto O’Rourke erasure is what it is and why do you hate the Irish?

I think of this as the Deep Blue Something debate tactic. That one-hit wonder’s one hit was a song called “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” which tells the story of a girl trying to dump her boyfriend without wounding his feelings and him not handling this well at all.

“We’ve got nothing in common,” she tells him, invoking one of the classic break-up clichés. She is trying to be nice. She is trying to be gentle and considerate, reassuring him that it’s her, not him, and that he shouldn’t take this to mean that he is a bad person who is unworthy of finding love some day … with someone else.

Alas, he does not take this well. Instead, he seizes on her use of a categorical word and turns into Debate Me! Boi. He seems to be trying to convince himself that winning this debate will somehow compel her to surrender to what he wants instead of what she wants, forcing her to stay with him because technically they do have something in common and therefore he is right and she is wrong and she must concede the point and love him for it:

And I said, “What about ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’?”
She said, “I think I remember the film and
As I recall, I think we both kinda liked it”
And I said, “Well, that’s the one thing we’ve got”

The male character in this story* is technically correct that it is inaccurate to say, categorically, that this couple has nothing in common. Both of them are bipedal mammals. They both synthesize proteins with their livers. And they both think that the young Audrey Hepburn was adorable.

Those things may all be true of (almost) everyone, and cannot be said to form the foundation for a solid romantic partnership but, still, it was incorrect of her to use that categorical word “nothing.”

But while she may be guilty of technically imprecise colloquial language, he is guilty of being a willfully obtuse jerk and a coercive pedant. This is why the song doesn’t end with this couple happily reuniting. His desperate response only serves to confirm that she made the right choice in dumping him.

Many of the initial reactions to Sutton’s characterization of evangelicalism as white, patriarchal, nationalistic, conservative, and capitalist have just been variations of this dude’s same desperate, obtuse lashing back with “Oh yeah!?! Well, what about Breakfast at Tiffany’s?”

This hashtag-not-all reply entails listing counter-examples of evangelicals who do not necessarily check all of the boxes in Sutton’s definition. What about Jim Wallis and Ron Sider and Tony Campolo?** What about JPUSA? What about, um, Shane Claibourne? Or Rachel Held Evans? Huh? What about them?

There’s an implicit substance underlying that superficial objection and I want to unpack that and explore more fully why it ultimately reinforces and confirms the accuracy of Sutton’s definition. But for now I just want to note that when you’re the guy singing “What about Breakfast at Tiffany’s?” you’re getting dumped. I’m sorry, but it’s over and she’s never getting back together with you.

At this point, we all have that song stuck in our heads, so we should conclude by posting it here. No, not that song, this one:

* In defense of Deep Blue Something and Todd Pipes, who sang and wrote the song, the first-person character in this story song is not necessarily meant to be a reliable narrator. The song is best understood as a character sketch of an emotionally immature dude who responds defensively and badly when he gets dumped. That story might be informed by Pipes’ personal history, but it could just as well be based on his observing other people and it doesn’t need to be understood as autobiography. As Rupert Holmes lamented about his biggest hit, “Escape (the Piña Colada Song),” just because you’re singing in the first person doesn’t mean the story is about you.

** It may take me a while to get there, but my own partial critique of Sutton’s argument will involve me making the case that, unlike Jim and Ron, Tony Campolo isn’t really an evangelical. He is, rather, an indigenous missionary commissioned by Mount Carmel and sent to bring the gospel to white Americans.

evangelicals

Previous Post

September 3, 2024

Fightin' words in the 'evangelical definition wars'

Next Post

September 8, 2024 Sunday reading

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"I've seen videos of OSHA inspectors in the Trek universe..."

Andrew

Some obscure footnotes of white evangelical ..."

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXJo4PoMQRM"

Matri

Smart people saying smart things (10.20.26)

"https://uploads.disquscdn.c..."

reynard61

Smart people saying smart things (10.20.26)

"https://uploads.disquscdn.c..."

Matri

Smart people saying smart things (10.20.26)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does the name "Samuel" mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

God is King Chosen One Heard by God Gift from God