Abstract
As the United States approaches the 2024 presidential election, its citizens are experiencing extreme political and religious schism. Separation of church and state is no longer the mantra of the US population. Instead, declarations of which political candidate is “anointed” by God fill the airwaves as well as social media networks. Individuals on both sides of the schism are convinced they know and hear the voice of God and are convinced their favored candidate is the one ordained by God to be the next president of the United States. The confusion created by this rhetoric is intensified by declarations from both sides that democracy is at risk. This article strives to answer the question, “What is really at stake?”
Keywords
Introduction
As the United States approaches the 2024 presidential election, its citizens are experiencing extreme political and religious schism. Separation of church and state is no longer the mantra of the US population. 1 Instead, declarations of which political candidate is “anointed” by God fill the airwaves as well as social media networks. Individuals on both sides of the schism are convinced they know and hear the voice of God and are convinced their favored candidate is the one ordained by God to be the next president of the United States. The confusion created by this rhetoric is intensified by declarations from both sides that democracy is at risk, as well as life as we know it.
How does one unravel these rhetorical knots to drill down to the core, the essence, of what is being debated and what is at stake for US citizens going forward? Both sides use the Bible and biblical interpretation(s) to ground their arguments. Both sides use terms such as “stay woke” and “your democracy is at stake.” Who is right? Who is wrong? And what is really at stake?
The scandal of democracy
In the fourth-century BCE, Aristotle spoke of the scandal of democracy. As part of his analysis, he noted three primary groups in society, each with their own share (axiaï), they uniquely hold: oligoï, whose share is wealth, aristoï, whose share is excellence, and, demos, whose share is freedom. The demos does not uniquely possess freedom; however, the oligoï and aristoï also possess freedom. The scandal of democracy is the unequal distribution of commodities. Within democracy, equality is unrealized and unrealizable because of democracy’s inherit exclusion of the demos. 2
Aristotle went on to describe the scandal of democracy as evidenced through speech acts, noting the oligoï and the aristoï each have the capacity for logos (meaningful reasoned speech), while the demos is perceived by the upper classes as exhibiting phōnē only (the capacity of all animals to express pain and pleasure). As a result, the demos are dehumanized and not allotted equal shares in a democratic society. 3
French philosopher Jacques Rancière took issue with Aristotle’s analysis, insisting the demos is also capable of logos (meaningful reasoned speech) and noting that when the demos cries out for justice, interrupting the normal operation of the hegemonic center, politics occurs. Rancière develops his analysis further by noting that whenever politics emerges, policing meets it. Policing is the natural response to politics within the scandalous environment of democracy. 4 In other words, Aristotle observed democracy as only beneficial for the two upper classes, the oligoï and the aristoï. The demos, after which democracy is named, was not allotted equal shares of commodities and never would be due to being dehumanized. Rancière contemporized Aristotle’s observation(s) by acknowledging the capacity and will of the demos to speak out against the scandal of democracy, to create the contemporary political climate as well as the policing of the hegemonic status quo.
I find Rancière’s analysis to provide an astute description of the contemporary US political climate. What the United States is experiencing is a class struggle camouflaged by religious and political rhetoric with the intent of confusing the population into voting on behalf of the elite and against one’s own best interests.
When both sides state “democracy is at risk,” in essence they are both correct. The difference lies, however, in how democracy is perceived/defined. One side is stuck in and committed to Aristotle’s analysis: the demos is capable only of phōnē (expressing pain and pleasure), while the elite are endowed with the capacity for logos (meaningful reasoned speech) and ought to be in charge of the nation. In addition, this group believes their status as oligoï and aristoï is God-given and God-ordained. This group supports the political candidate that will retain the hierarchy of humanity they believe was established by God Almighty at the creation of the world. Those people on the opposite end of the political and religious schism lean toward Rancière’s analysis, supporting and even contributing to the political struggle for a true democracy that humanizes all people and cries for equality across all the divisive “-isms.” Is democracy at risk? Absolutely. The question is, which democracy are individuals hoping/fighting for?
The scandal of religion
The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)
On November 30, 2020, Baptist Press published a news article titled, “Seminary presidents reaffirm BFM, declare CRT incompatible.” The article reports that as “confessional institutions,” the SBC’s six seminaries stand “together to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message (BFM) calling it the classic statement of biblical truth.” Simultaneously, the six SBC seminary presidents declared that while condemning “racism in any form,” the seminaries agree that “affirmation of Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality and any version of Critical Theory is incompatible with the Baptist Faith & Message.” 5
The presidents’ statement noted that SBC seminary professors “must agree to teach in accordance with and not contrary to the Baptist Faith and Message,” adding, “This is our sacred commitment and privilege, and every individual faculty member and trustee of our institutions shares this commitment.” In addition, they state, “We are thankful for the theological commitments of the Southern Baptist Convention, standing against the tide of theological compromise and in the face of an increasingly hostile secular culture.”
These statements are alarming. What happened to the four fragile freedoms of Baptist heritage, 6 freedoms to which many Baptist congregations are adamantly committed?
Bible freedom
The Bible is foundational to Baptists as individuals and as local congregations. Every Christian has the freedom and right to interpret and apply Scripture under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. The wisdom and counsel of the larger congregation should nurture individual believers as they seek to interpret and apply Scripture.
Soul freedom
Each is accountable to God individually without the imposition of creed or the control of clergy or government. This personal experience with God is indispensable to the Christian life and necessary for a vital church. This principle is sometimes described as the “priesthood of all believers.”
Church freedom
Baptist churches are free, under the Lordship of Christ, to determine their membership, leadership, doctrine, and practice. This freedom is sometimes known as “autonomy of the local church.” Individual churches should work together to achieve goals that one church by itself could not reach.
Religious freedom
Everyone should be able to worship (or not) as they feel led without unnecessary interference by the government. Just as religious freedom involves the freedom to practice religion, it also includes the freedom not to practice religion. If you cannot say “no,” your “yes” is meaningless. The separation of church and state affords an important constitutional protection of religious freedom for all. 7
As an academic, a seminary academic dean, and a Baptist, I am startled by the blatant rhetorical attempt of SBC presidents to speak against the four fragile freedoms and to control the work of the Holy spirit in our world today. Through the November 30, 2020 announcement the SBC presidents have implicitly claimed several things, among them:
They are “literal readers” of the Bible, not interpreters.
They are holding on to the “pure theology,” one that is not muddied or affected by contemporary human experience.
A majority of scholars at AAR/SBL have long agreed that everyone interprets and that all interpret from their own context, that there is no such thing as a purely objective reading/interpretation of the biblical text (or of any text for that matter). In 1995 Fernando Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert published Reading from this Place, Vol. 1: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in the United States. 8 Many similar publications have followed, for example, a volume 2 by Segovia and Tolbert in 1995 and numerous others by scholars from various ethnic backgrounds. 9 In other words, contemporary scholars agree there is no such thing as a literal reading of the Bible.
In response to the second implicit claim listed above, I point to post-colonial theory and Kelly Brown Douglas’s book Stand your Ground: Black Bodies and the Justice of God. 10 Douglas (as well as R. S. Sugirtharajah 11 ) addresses the idea of a “pure” theology by reviewing the history of Christianity in the United States.
Douglas begins her history with a description of the Anglo-Saxon myth that describes Tacitus’s Germania, a portrayal of ancient German civil society with a respect for individual rights and an instinctive love of freedom. According to Douglas’s research, the Puritans are an Anglo-Saxon remnant that sought to escape a corrupt church in England, arriving on the North American continent with two burning agendas: to create a utopian civil society (based on Germania) and to establish what they understood to be a pure religion. 12 The Puritans believed themselves to be the New Israel (the chosen people) entering the new Garden of Eden. From these beginnings came the theology of Manifest Destiny, 13 derived from the Papal Bull “Inter Caetera,” issued by Pope Alexander VI on May 4, 1493, outlining the Doctrine of Discovery. 14
The history of religion in the United States is anything but “pure.” Its roots flow from Anglo-Saxonism, which is based in the pure bloodlines of ancient Germania. From these roots, the theology of white supremacy has been formed. 15 The SBC presidents have mandated that Critical Race Theory (CRT) cannot be taught in SBC schools as they desire to hold to the “pure” theology of the past and not be swayed by contemporary ideas that lead to a contextual theology for the present. In other words, the SBC seminary presidents wish to bypass the four fragile freedoms and adhere to a scandalous democracy that maintains a hierarchy of humanity in which the demos receives little if any of the benefits society has to offer. By mandating that CRT cannot be taught in their seminaries, the SBC presidents have policed the politics of their denomination and their schools, disallowing disagreements and allowing only a scandalous democracy to be retained.
Christian Nationalism
The SBC presidents are but one example of the mind-set behind the religio-political schism in the United States today. In their book, Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States, Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry provide a quantitative study on Christian Nationalism in the United States. As a result of their study, the authors created the following definition for Christian Nationalism: “An ideology that idealizes and advocates a fusion of American civic life with a particular type of Christian identity and culture.” 16 From a set of quantitative data, 17 Whitehead and Perry create four categories of responders to Christian Nationalism: Rejectors, Resisters, Accommodators, and Ambassadors. 18 Surprisingly, the two categories that embrace Christian Nationalism, Accommodators and Ambassadors, cut across denominational, gender, age, and racial lines.
Specifically, Whitehead and Perry have determined Christian Nationalists are a unique category of people that do not emphasize doctrinal orthodoxy or personal piety but emphasize beliefs about historical identity, cultural pre-eminence, and political influence. Christian Nationalists hold a cultural framework through which they perceive and navigate their social world using symbolic boundaries that conceptually blur and conflate religious identity (Christian, preferably Protestant) with race (white), nativity (born in the United States), citizenship (American), and political ideology (socially and fiscally conservative). 19
To be clear, according to Whitehead and Perry, Christian Nationalism is not equal to white evangelicalism, although overlap exists. Rather, Christian Nationalism is a framework that orients Americans’ perspectives on national identity, belonging, and social hierarchies. In contrast, American evangelicalism is a theological tradition prioritizing certain doctrinal commitments including biblical inerrancy and conversionism. 20
Christian Nationalism includes assumptions of nativism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and heteronormativity, along with the divine sanction for authoritarian control and militarism. It is as ethnic and political as it is religious. Christian Nationalism contends that the United States has been and should always be distinctively “Christian” in its self-identity, interpretations of its own history, sacred symbols, cherished values, and public policies, and it aims to keep the nation that way. 21
Christian Nationalists are not interested in creating a theocracy and are rarely concerned with instituting explicitly “Christ-like” policies, or even policies reflecting New Testament ethics. Rather, they view God’s expectations of the United States as akin to God’s commands to Old Testament Israel. They believe the United States should fear God’s wrath for unfaithfulness while assuming God’s blessing, or even mandate, for subduing the continent by force if necessary. 22
According to Whitehead and Perry, Christian Nationalists are premillennial dispensationalists, believing the world will become increasingly corrupt until Christ returns to rescue the faithful, followed by his millennial reign on earth. Premillennial dispensationalists (PDs) believe the Christian’s responsibility is to delay the United States’s inevitable decline, in hopes that many will be saved. Simultaneously, PDs are convinced that God requires the faithful to wage wars for good. Consequently, they are typically not committed to care and justice or stewardship, rather to a fidelity to religion and nation (it is good to serve in the military). 23
In contrast, postmillennial dispensationalists hold a more optimistic view, believing Christians can and will be victorious in the here and now. Postmillennial Dispensationalists hold commitments toward care, justice, and stewardship as well as a fidelity to religion. 24
The tenets of today’s Christian Nationalism laid out above typically result in four significant ideological perspectives:
They support Donald Trump for president.
They tend to be xenophobic.
They tend to be unwilling to acknowledge injustices.
They tend to be misogynistic.
Why Trump? Because Trump is the defender of the power and values they perceive are being threatened in the progressive/liberal environment. Why xenophobic? Because anyone not native born, Christian, and white will bring alternative priorities and moralities to the nation. Why unwilling to acknowledge injustices? Because of a need for authoritarian control. Why misogynist? Because everyone should be in their “proper place.” 25 Whitehead and Perry’s strongest defining statement about Christian Nationalism follows: “Christian Nationalism is political idolatry dressed up as religious orthodoxy.” 26
The scandal of political theology
I suspect the meshing of religion, civil society, and politics is as old as the origins of human civilization and the Christian canon is full of it. In fact, Christianity was born out of empire, specifically the Roman Empire. Political theology has therefore existed since the beginning of Christianity. Jesus preached the Kingdom of God and contrasted life under God with life under Caesar. He died a condemned political prisoner under Roman Imperial rule.
The apostle Paul’s relation to politics has been up for debate. On one hand, he encouraged Jesus’s followers to be subject to the authorities (Rom 13:1). On the other hand, he challenged the lordship of the emperor by calling Jesus “Lord.” While the exact details of St. Paul’s death are unknown, tradition holds that he was beheaded in Rome and thus died as a martyr for his faith. “His death was perhaps part of the executions of Christians ordered by the Roman emperor Nero following the great fire in the city in 64 CE.” 27
The early church fathers continued to expound on the political theologies of Jesus and Paul. For example, St. Augustine wrote his City of God (413–426 CE) when the Roman Empire was threatened. In this historic work, Augustine contrasted the city of God with the earthly city. He refused to sacralize a human-made state and argued that human society only finds completion in the realm of God.
The Gospels are replete with stories that describe tensions between Jesus followers and the Roman Empire, as well as tensions between Jesus followers and the temple establishment. For example, John, in his Gospel, uses the story of Jesus healing the blind man to address a similar problem in his own day, mainly a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes “good theology and practice.”
John 9:1–41 relates the story of Jesus healing the blind man. 28 At the start of the chapter, Jesus and his disciples are walking along and see a man blind from birth. Jesus’s disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (v. 2). Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him” (v. 3).
In this writing, I wish to focus on what Jesus speaks to the Pharisees at the close of chapter 9 (offering a true inclusion in the literary structure of the passage) that brings home the main point of the story. “If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains” (v. 41). Jesus flipped the narrative.
At the start of the John 9 story, readers hear the traditional theological belief of the people in their time period: “Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Note how John uses this incident (he is the only gospel writer to include this story) to address the “true blindness” of the Pharisees. At the close of this narrative, readers are to understand that physical blindness does not equal sin; rather spiritual (social/societal) blindness equals sin, emphasizing the two greatest commandments: love of God and love of neighbor. 29
As I continue to speak to the John 9 narrative, I wish to address a trinity of important concepts related to the categories of CRT, intersectionality, and critical theory in general, these categories being listed as the three big “no-nos” for SBC seminaries. The trinity of concepts I address are identity formation, rights, and caste, a trinity of concepts that relate directly to the Christian Nationalist agenda(s) as well.
First, in John 9, the man born blind’s neighbors are amazed this man has been healed from his blindness. Some are clear he is the man that used to beg in the town square and others are in denial, saying “No, it is someone like him.” The man, however, kept saying over and over “I am the man” (vv. 8–9). They asked him how it was that he could see, and he tells them Jesus made mud (out of spittle) and rubbed it on my eyes and told me to go to the pool of Siloam (which means sent) and wash, after which I received my sight (v. 11). They then wanted to know where Jesus was and the man said, “I do not know” (v. 12).
The neighbors brought the man to the Pharisees (i.e., the leaders of the synagogue) for questioning (v. 13). When he testified that Jesus had put mud on his eyes, then he washed, and now he sees, some of the Pharisees became disgruntled saying that Jesus could not be from God because he had done this work on the sabbath. But others said, “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” (vv. 15–16). When they asked the man healed from blindness what he thought of Jesus, he said, “He is a prophet” (v. 17).
According to John, the Jewish leaders did not believe the man had been blind until they called his parents to testify. His parents, out of fear of being put out of the synagogue, said yes, this is our son, but we do not know how or who healed him; he is of age ask him yourself (vv. 18–23).
So, they called the man back for another conversation and asked him to tell them again what happened. Much discussion was made around the idea of who had sinned and who was to be deemed a sinner (vv. 24–26). The now-healed blind man asked the Jewish leaders if they wanted to be Jesus’s disciples, a question that ruffled the feathers of those questioning him, causing them to declare, in no uncertain terms, their allegiance to Moses (vv. 27–28).
The blind man, now healed, said, Here is an astonishing thing! You do not know where he comes from and yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners . . . if this man were not from God he could do nothing.
They answered, “you were born entirely in sins, and are trying to teach us?” And they drove him out of the synagogue (vv. 30–34).
Jesus heard that the leaders of the synagogue had driven out the man born blind (note he is never referred to by his proper name) and went looking for him. When Jesus found the man, Jesus asked, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” The man answered, “Who is he? Tell me so I may believe.” And Jesus reveals himself as the Son of Man 30 and the man once blind, but now can see, believed and worshipped (vv. 35–38).
Then Jesus says, “I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind.” Hearing Jesus make this statement, the Pharisees said, “Surely we are not blind, are we?” (vv. 39–40). Jesus responds with the statement quoted earlier: “If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains” (v. 41).
Rights
In his article, “The Language of Rights and its Limits,”
31
Johnathan C. Richardson emphasizes that the language of “rights” is accompanied by a problematic anthropology, as well as the sin of pride. He uses the example of his severely disabled niece who cannot speak to or fight for her own rights. He notes the lesson he has learned through his engagement with her, that to be human is to feel that which may be defined as love, and it is what we love and how we love that most fundamentally defines who we are. Rights language on the other hand is centered in reason. It begins with the mind that reasons and not with the body that loves.
32
At this point, I wish to reflect on Aristotle’s linguistic categories of logos and phōnē. According to Aristotle’s analysis, the upper classes believe only they, the oligoï and the aristoï have logos (the capacity for meaningful reasoned speech), while the demos has phōnē only (the capacity to express pleasure and pain). Richardson’s conclusions suggest that humanness is defined by the capacity “to love [per Aristotle, phōnē] and that how we love and who we love defines who we are.” “Rights language, on the other hand, is centered in reason” [per Aristotle, logos]. Aristotle suggests the demos is dehumanized by the elite’s assumptions that they are incapable of logos and capable of phōnē alone. By contrast, Richardson has concluded the exact opposite.
For Richardson, the capacity to love equals being human. Which is it? What makes us truly human? Our capacity to reason or our capacity to love? Perhaps it is both. Rancière disagrees with the idea that the demos has the capacity for phōnē only (capacity to express pain and pleasure) and notes that, when the demos speaks loudly against the injustice(s) they experience, they disrupt the status quo, after which the elite immediately begin to police.
How does this analysis apply to the story of Jesus healing the blind man? Rather than celebrating the healing of a man born blind (love for the human and his condition), the Pharisees (Jewish leaders) turn the episode into a theological debate (reason) that tests the membership of the man in the faith community. For the Pharisees, the event of a blind man healed becomes a litmus test for orthodoxy, as they pressure him to declare who Jesus is. In the end, the man born blind but now healed, is driven out of the synagogue because he has declared Jesus a prophet. The Pharisees are policing the synagogue as well as Jewish orthodoxy as they know it. This orthodoxy did not allow the man born blind to enter the synagogue due to his perceived sin (because he had been born blind; cf. Matt 21:14), and now, after being healed, the man born blind continues to be excluded from the synagogue because he has declared Jesus a prophet.
In verse 35 of chapter 9, John writes, “Jesus heard that they had driven him out, and when he found him, he said, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’” In this verse, John is telling readers that Jesus described himself as more than a prophet. Verse 22 says the Pharisees have warned the community: anyone that confesses Jesus is the Messiah will be put out of the synagogue. Yet, in verse 35, John relates something even more significant: Jesus is self-declaring as “Son of Man.” 33 After this declaration, the man born blind, and now healed, immediately declares “Lord, I believe” and worships him.
Similarly, the presidents of SBC seminaries have policed their curriculums by mandating that neither CRT nor intersectionality nor any type of critical theory can be taught in their schools. Simultaneously, the SBC denomination has policed its churches, disfellowshipping nearly 20 churches for having a female pastor and over abuse-related reports. 34 This policing speaks to the efforts to retain the status quo under the auspice of patriarchy and white supremacy. These maneuvers evidence a commitment to a hierarchy of gender and race, mainly, that white men should be in charge and everyone else must stay in their place further down the hierarchical ladder.
While Whitehead and Perry have made clear that white evangelicalism and Christian Nationalism are not one and the same, the ideological commitments between the two groups demonstrate much cross over. As noted earlier, Christian Nationalists hold to a hierarchy of white male, US-born, protestant authoritarianism with everyone else staying on their rung of the hierarchical ladder.
Identity formation
Yuval Noah Harari, author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, 35 has written an article entitled “The Dangerous Quest for Identity,” in which he confronts the weaponization of identity politics, noting that people are all so much more than any very narrow identity that might be imposed upon them to support a political agenda. For example, Harari is Jewish but notes his identity is so much more than membership in a particular human group. In addition to being Jewish, he likes football, chocolate, Tolstoy, romance, and understands the complexities of the Hebrew language, which in his words, “can hardly be imagined without Aramaean contributions.” 36 Human beings are complex, much more than a set of narrow tribal stories, which may serve as sharp weapons in the battles of identity politics, and at a high price.
In John 9, the Pharisees are all about determining the “true” identity, first of the man born blind and second of Jesus. The John 9 story speaks to identity politics in first-century Palestine. The Pharisees make clear that the “proper” identity is to be a disciple of Moses and to follow the ritual laws of the synagogue (e.g., no work on Saturday). The parents of the man born blind, fearful of being driven out of the synagogue, throw their son under the “oxcart” so to speak (“bus” would be anachronistic). This story depicts an identity politics strong enough to divide families. The parents’ fear of being excluded from the synagogue, of being pushed to the margins, overcomes the joy of their son’s healing. One can only imagine that the parents were thrilled their son had received his sight. Yet, when push comes to shove, the parents are not willing to side with their son as he disrupts the social order by declaring the one who healed him a prophet from God. Instead, they succumb to the pressures of the Pharisees’ policing of the synagogue and its membership.
Christian Nationalism is built on identity politics. One must be white, protestant, US-born, and heterosexual to belong, have power, and have the vote. Each person is to remain in their place. Given the commitment to authoritarian rule, policing is thought to be necessary and required even to the point of military action and violence. Christian Nationalists believe God has called them to retain the “established hierarchy,” and failure to do so will bring the wrath of God upon the nation.
The SBC presidents have clearly stated, “We are thankful for the theological commitments of the Southern Baptist Convention, standing against the tide of theological compromise and in the face of an increasingly hostile secular culture.” 37 The words “theological compromise” and “hostile” stand out in this statement. What exactly is being compromised? The status quo. The patriarchal and white supremacist hierarchical ladder is being compromised. The word “hostile” suggests the leaders feel threatened. Their ideologies are being challenged. Their beliefs and commitments to a God-ordained, stratified society in which white men rule and everyone stays in their place are at risk. What is the hostile counter narrative? It is the idea that every human being has been created in the imago dei (Gen 1:27). It is the idea that every living, breathing, human soul is equal in the eyes of God. It is that every human, irrespective of race, gender, or sexual orientation has been created with a particular set of gifts and are called by God to use those gifts to the benefit of humanity, society, and as an expression of their worship to God. It is that women are more than objects, more than playthings for powerful men to use as they choose and please. It is that people of color are more than servants to perform every wish and demand of the powerful, established, white male.
Both sides of the ideological spectrum use identity politics to address a fundamental ideology, that of the value of a human being. One side insists and is committed to the belief that God has ordained a hierarchy of human value. The other insists and is committed to the belief that all are created equal in the eyes of God.
Caste
Finally, I take a brief look at Isabel Wilkerson’s article “Division and Destiny,” in which she addresses the unwritten, but faithfully adhered to, caste system in the United States. 38 The major characters in John 9 are Jesus, the man born blind (nameless), the parents of the man born blind (also unnamed), and the Pharisees. The reference to major characters as the man born blind and the parents of the man born blind speaks to their status in the caste system of their time. Given that the traditional belief was that a man born blind had been born into the sins of the family, this family certainly would have been at the bottom of the caste system. In fact, at one point in the story, the man born blind is referred to as “the man who used to sit and beg” (v. 8). Consequently, this man and his family would not have much credibility.
Wilkerson comments on the tragic case of Tyre Nichols, the man fatally beaten in Memphis in January 2023 by five police officers who, like him, were black, stating, “Caste is not about black vs white, it is about hierarchy. . . . One does not have to be in the dominant caste to do its bidding.” 39 The parents of the man born blind do the bidding of the dominant caste as they refuse to acknowledge who had healed their son and tell the leaders interrogating them to ask their son themselves. The caste is made very clear in v. 34 when the Pharisees answer the man born blind by saying, “You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?”
Jesus has disrupted the status quo enough that policies have been made dictating “anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.” The Pharisaical elite were in the power position and could create policies to include and exclude. In John 9, the Pharisees enforced the policy when the man born blind but now healed, confessed Jesus was a prophet, which of course, does not equal a confession of Jesus as Messiah. Yet, the Pharisees had the power to interpret the policy, and it was acted upon.
Wilkerson, author of Caste: The Origin of Our Discontents, also the impetus for the 2024 movie Origin, has worked to find a word for the common practice of “othering.” According to the movie, Wilkerson began her quest in reaction to the overuse of the word “racism” in US culture. She believed a common practice existed between nations and cultures, distinct from racial differences. In her journey, she traveled to Germany to study the Holocaust and specifically the language and ideas that led to the genocide of six million Jews. Next, she traveled to India to study the caste system there and was struck by the fact that those in the Dalit caste, referred to as the “untouchables,” were not understood to be racially different and yet were dehumanized in much the same way African Americans have been treated in the United States. In the end, she settled on the word “caste,” noting that the creating and sustaining of a caste system, whether written or unwritten, is a common occurrence between culture groups.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is about addressing the negative use of identity politics, the need for equal rights, and the undoing of the unwritten and unspoken US caste system. When the SBC seminary presidents thank the SBC for standing against theological compromise, they are essentially thanking the SBC for their commitments to retain the status quo, that is, their commitments to the “orthodox” theologies of patriarchy and white supremacy. Their commitments are to theologies that have created and sustained the unwritten and oft times unspoken caste system of white male, heterosexual, Christian leaders on top and everyone else falling in line down the caste ladder. The Christian Nationalists are committed to the same agenda.
Through the telling of the story in chapter 9, John flips the narrative. John, the faithful Jew, was addressing the Jewish religious leaders of his day. Through the telling of the story of the healing of the man born blind, John confronts the “bad theologies and practices” of the Jewish leaders, because they had become more concerned about “orthodoxy” than humanity and were using “orthodoxy” as a means for retaining power and control of the synagogue to the point of driving out anyone (and everyone) who dared challenge their bad, “orthodox” theology and practice. I am mindful in this moment of Whitehead and Perry’s definition: “Christian Nationalism is political idolatry dressed up as religious orthodoxy.” 40 In other words, Christian Nationalists are committed to the retention of the religious orthodoxies of patriarchy and white supremacy to the point of bringing violent warfare to retain them.
Remembering the famous response Jesus made in Mark 12:30–31, when asked which commandment is the first of all, Jesus replied, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” There is no other commandment greater than these.
Jesus states these same commandments in Luke 10:25–27 as the means for inheriting eternal life, after which the lawyer Jesus is engaging asks, “And who is my neighbor?” The answer to this question is the story of the Good Samaritan, a story about how the “Other” was revealed as the true neighbor and consequently as the one the lawyer ought to be loving as himself.
The theological orthodoxies of patriarchy and white supremacy do not fulfill the two greatest commandments. One is not loving their neighbor as themselves if one is committed to “Othering” them. CRT, intersectionality, and critical theories are all tools used by contemporary, progressive Christians and scholars to flip the narrative.
Christians no longer need to be held hostage by the theological orthodoxies of patriarchy and white supremacy. The Holy Spirit is at work in the world today moving through the church (and at times in spite of the church), moving through those who embrace the fragile Baptist principles of Bible freedom, soul freedom, church freedom, and religious freedom. The Holy Spirit is moving today through those who have eyes to see toward the development of theologies that address truth, racial healing, and restorative justice. It is time to flip the narrative.
Conclusion
As I close, I come back to the beginning. Both sides of the religio-political schism in the United States will declare they are in the right, that their democracy is at stake. For me, the defining component is in our humanity. If humans are all one species, 41 then our focus must be on our shared humanity. Politics is a way of life. When some are “Othered” or dehumanized, they will speak out, even cry out, causing a disruption that will lead to politics. Once the status quo is challenged and the political game is in play, the power group will rise to control the disruption through policing with the intent to confuse the population into voting on behalf of the elite and against one’s own best interests. Those who have eyes to see have seen this pattern repeat many times. Rights, identity formation, and caste are all significant factors. Democracies are at stake. The question is which democracy we are committed to, which democracy we will fight for.
The answer to these questions is totally dependent upon one’s theological perspective on humanity. How does each of us understand humanity? What defines being human? Are only the elite in our society deserving of rights and privileges? Or is the entire species equally human and equally deserving? If the latter, then we must transform our democracy into one that allows access for all people. 42 In reality, an all-inclusive democracy has never truly existed in the United States. 43 Can we get there?
As we move toward the 2024 elections, we must work to clarify the rhetoric. We must preach sermons and speak truths that address the essence of the argument(s). In an effort to promote and support true equality for the entire species, we must flip the narratives that lead to “Othering” and dehumanization. We must flip the narratives that support the theological orthodoxies of patriarchy and white supremacy. Because our democracy is at stake and, more importantly, because our humanity is at stake.
Footnotes
1.
In the middle of Holy Week 2024, Donald Trump announced the sale of his new Bible, The “God Bless the USA Bible,” which includes within its bound cover the handwritten chorus to “God Bless the USA,” by Lee Greenwood, the US Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, and the Pledge of Allegiance. There are several problems with this Bible. First, by including the US documents in the same binding as the KJV Bible, Trump has essentially equated their value and authority. Only the Bible itself is the authoritative canon for the Christian church. The US documents, as important as they are, do not have the same stature in the eyes of the Christian church as the Bible. In their being bound together in one volume, many will conflate the two sets of documents (the US documents and the books of the Bible) as one and the same and equal in revelation and authority and as God ordained. Combining the documents together in one volume creates confusion and sends a wrong message, commingling the two sets of documents as if they are one. Secondly, the KJV is one of the oldest translations (commissioned in 1604 and printed in 1611). The KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate, making it two steps away from the original text(s) written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The old adage, something was lost in the translation, is meaningful here. Translation is rarely a matter of one-to-one correspondence between languages; rather it is a matter of creating a dynamic equivalence. Consequently, the most accurate and reliable translations come directly from the original text(s). By translating the Latin Vulgate into English, the translators risked incorporating numerous inaccuracies, many of which could be avoided by working from the original languages. Finally, the reason we keep seeing new translations, or updated translations such as the NRSVue, is because manuscript evidence continues to be unearthed, helping readers understand the original writings. The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek biblical writings did not come with a handy lexicon to look up difficult and seldom-used words. Our collected knowledge of the meaning of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words in the Bible comes from years of study and archaeological discoveries. The “God Bless the USA Bible” is problematic.
2.
Aristotle, Politics, III, 1281b36.
3.
Aristotle, Politics, IV, summarized in Jacques Rancière, Dis-Agreement: Politics and Philosophy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999), 21–23.
4.
Rancière, Dis-agreement, 21–42.
5.
6.
Walter B. Shurden, The Baptist Identity: Four Fragile Freedoms (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 1993).
7.
Shurden, Baptist Identity, 4–5. Shurden dedicates a separate chapter to each of the four freedoms.
8.
Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert, Reading from this Place, Vol. 1: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in the United States (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1995).
9.
Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert, Reading from this Place, Vol. 2: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in the United States (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1995); Mary Foskett and Jeffrey Kah-Jin Kuan, eds., Ways of Being, Ways of Reading: Asian American Biblical Interpretations (St. Louis: Chalice, 2007); Hugh R. Page, Jr., The Africana Bible: Reading Israel’s Scriptures from Africa and the African Diaspora (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010); Miguel A. De La Torre, Reading the Bible from the Margins (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2002); Gale A. Yee, Towards an Asian American Biblical Hermeneutics: An Intersectional Anthology (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2021), to name only a few examples.
10.
Kelly Brown Douglas, Stand Your Ground: Black Bodies and the Justice of God (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2015).
11.
R. S. Sugirtharajah, Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice (Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011).
12.
Douglas, Stand your Ground, 4–11.
13.
Josiah Strong, Our Country: Its Possible Future and Its Present Crisis, with an introduction by Prof. Autin Phelps, D.D. (New York: Baker & Taylor, 1885). Strong makes his case for America’s divine calling by first recognizing, “Every race which has deeply impressed itself on the human family has been the representative of some great idea.” He goes on to point out that the Anglo-Saxon has represented two great ideas: “civil liberty” and “a pure spiritual Christianity” (159–60).
14.
For a full rendering of the document see “The Doctrine of Discovery, 1493,” The Hilder Lehrman Institute of American History, May 4, 1493, 
. The Lehrman Institute’s introduction to the document reads, “The Bull stated that any land not inhabited by Christians was available to be ‘discovered,’ claimed, and exploited by Christian rulers and declared ‘the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself.’ This ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ became the basis of all European claims in the Americas as well as the foundation for the United States’ western expansion. In the US Supreme Court in the 1823 case Johnson v. McIntosh, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the unanimous decision held ‘that the principle of discovery gave European nations an absolute right to New World lands.’ In essence, American Indians had only a right of occupancy, which could be abolished.”
15.
This article does not have the bandwidth to track the roots of the theology of white supremacy. Accordingly, I point to a list of readings: Jacqueline Battalora, Birth of a White Nation: The Invention of White People and Its Relevance Today (Houston: Strategic Book Publishing, 2013); Lisa M. Bowens, African American Readings & Paul: Reception, Resistance & Transformation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020); Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (New York: New York University Press, 2017); Douglas, Stand Your Ground; Frances Flannery and Rodney A. Werline, eds., The Bible in Political Debate (New York: Bloomsbury, 2016); David M. Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003); Angie Maxwell and Todd Shields, The Long Southern Strategy: How Chasing White Voters in the South Changed American Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019); Sugirtharajah, Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism.
16.
Andrew L. Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry, Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States, updated ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022), ix–x.
17.
18.
Whitehead and Perry, Taking America Back for God, 9.
19.
Whitehead and Perry, Taking America Back for God, x.
20.
Whitehead and Perry, Taking America Back for God, 10–21.
21.
Whitehead and Perry, Taking America Back for God, 10.
22.
Whitehead and Perry, Taking America Back for God, 11.
23.
Whitehead and Perry, Taking America Back for God, 14–15.
24.
For a full rendering of terms and definitions, see LeAnn Snow Flesher, Left Behind? The Facts Behind the Fiction (Valley Forge: Judson, 2006); Flesher, “Premillennial Dispensationalism: Its Origins,” Rev Exp 106.1 (Winter 2009): 21–34; Flesher, “The Historical Development of Premillennial Dispensationalism,” Rev Exp 106.1 (Winter 2009): 35–45.
25.
Whitehead and Perry, Taking America Back for God, 16–17.
26.
Whitehead and Perry, Taking America Back for God, 21.
28.
All biblical quotes are from the NRSV.
29.
Cf. Matt 22:36–40.
30.
Much ink has been spilled in an attempt to define the use of “Son of Man” in the Old and New Testament, as well as the book of 1 Enoch. In Ezekiel, the prophet is called “Son of Man” (ben ’ādām) over 90 times. The NRSV translates the expression “O mortal” in the book of Ezekiel. The expression also occurs in Dan 7:13 and alludes to an anointed one (messianic figure) coming in the clouds to whom was given dominion and glory and kingship (7:13–14a). In 1 Enoch 37–71 the “Son of Man” is associated with the protagonist (Enoch himself) as a transcendent figure known as “the righteous one,” “the chosen one,” “the anointed one,” and “this/that son of Man,” who functions as champion of the “the righteous and the chosen” and as judge of their antagonists, “the kings and the mighty.” (George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Son of Man,” ABD 6:138). In the New Testament, the expression “the son of man,” occurs over 70 times in the Gospels with reference to Jesus. See A. Yarbro Collins, “The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as ‘Son of Man,’” HTR 80.4 (1987): 391–408. According to Collins, “The expression is clearly a Semitism, corresponding to Hebrew ben adam . . . which means, normally, ‘human being’ or ‘someone’.” See A. Yarbo Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 75. Collins concludes, “‘The Son of Man’ was not a fixed title in Judaism in the first century CE, but it was an important concept for the development of messianism around the turn of the era” (78). Daniel Boyarian, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (New York: The New Press, 2012), ch 1, has suggested the ben adam coming in the clouds in Daniel 7 represents a deity.
31.
Johnathon C. Richardson, “The Language of Rights and its Limits,” The Christian Century (March 2023): 40–42.
32.
Richardson, “Language of Rights”, 41.
33.
See Note 29.
34.
35.
Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (New York: Harper, 2015).
37.
Schroeder, “Seminary presidents reaffirm BFM.”
38.
39.
Wilkerson, “Division & Destiny.”
40.
Whitehead and Perry, Taking America Back, 21.
41.
“The billions of human beings living today all belong to one species: Homo sapiens. As in all species, there is variation among individual human beings, from size and shape to skin tone and eye color. But we are much more alike than we are different. We are, in fact, remarkably similar. The DNA of all human beings living today is 99.9% the same.” “One Species, Living Worldwide,” Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, January 3, 2024, https://humanorigins.si.edu/multimedia/videos/one-species-living-worldwide. See also Ian Tattersall, “Homo sapiens,” Brittanica, May 9, 2024, .
42.
Paragraph 2 of The Declaration of Independence begins, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .” Unfortunately, these words were not believed when they were written. Given these words were penned in 1776 we will forgive, for the moment, the use of “men” and understand it to relate to women as well. At the time of the writing of The Declaration of Independence, however, it did indeed seem to refer to men, but not all men, only those of a certain ethnicity and class. Nonetheless, the words are true and pregnant with meaning. May we live into them today. Given that the DNA of all human beings is 99.9% the same these words “all humans are created equal” resonate. May we as a nation live into them. See “The Declaration of Independence: A Transcript,” National Archives, .
43.
I point to voting rights to support this statement. Black men did not gain the right to vote until 1870 when the Fifteenth Amendment was passed. Yet, states still found ways to circumvent the Constitution and prevent Blacks from voting. Women did not win the right to vote until 1920. To this day, states are involved in partisan gerrymandering in an attempt to control the outcomes of elections.