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
Team Jonah is Team Slavery is Team Trump (part 1)

Team Jonah is Team Slavery is Team Trump (part 1)

Last updated on: February 3, 2025 at 4:37 pm by Fred Clark

0 Comments

Team Jonah is Team Slavery is Team Trump (part 1) 2025-02-03T16:37:37-05:00 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.

American Christianity, Ansley Quiros writes, is “In the Midst of a Theological Crisis.”

Not that this is anything new. This same “theological crisis” — this same conflict over the meaning of Christianity — has long shaped and been shaped by American history, from the long dispute over enslavement through Reconstruction and its abandonment, the second Reconstruction of the Civil Rights era and the long slow abandonment of that (bringing us to the present).

This is the same “theological crisis” explored in Mark Noll’s excellent The Civil War as Theological Crisis, which examines white Christians’ competing, irreconcilable religious arguments for and against slavery. And the same crisis or conflict described in Lincoln’s Second Inaugural:

Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered ~ that of neither has been answered fully.

Noll focused on that first bit: “Both read the same Bible.” Not only did both sides read it, but both sides claimed to defer to it — to be guided by obedience to its authoritative teachings. Both read it and declared its words to be clear, unambiguous, and incontrovertible, and yet the two sides firmly held that the Bible clearly stated incompatible, opposite things.

Quiros sees this same crisis recurring or remanifesting itself in things like the contradictory response to a recent sermon by the Right Rev. Marian Edgar Budde at the National Cathedral in which she pleaded for “mercy” for children and immigrants. The polar opposite reactions of two factions of white Christians show that, as Shane Claibourne put it recently, we seem to have “two Christianities.” Two very different, theologically incompatible, Christianities.

But again, as Quiros recognizes, this is not new. These “Two Christianities” are precisely the same two opposite factions that Noll and Lincoln described. Quiros hints at this with the way her wry comment that “there is really no Christian case to be made against mercy as a concept” echoes Lincoln’s “It may seem strange” comment.

This perennial “theological crisis” among white Christians in America leads Quiros to conclude with a thorny question:

How much is really theological and how much is using religion to justify politics or create a moral cover? Of course, I still don’t know. Interpretation and prioritization of religious principles and theological truths are often political, even partisan. But I think theological belief matters. I think that theological conflicts, like the one hinted at last week, have long been historically and morally significant. As we stand at another inflection moment in our national story, I’m curious (alarmed! but still curious) about the surprising role that theology might play — on both sides — in how the crisis unfolds.

This can seem like a chicken-or-egg type of question — which is to say a question that is unanswerable, or a question for which the answer is irrelevant since either answer will bring us to the same place. Yet, as Quiros says, “theological belief matters,” even if or when it is a post-facto fig-leaf used to “create a moral cover” for political views. In such cases, the theological claims may be a mask, but they are also a buttress and a bearing wall in the permission structure that makes those political views seem tenable. Without that theological support — as make-work and transparently after-the-fact as it may be — those political views are less sustainable. As the Princeton theologian and abolitionist Albert Barnes said, “There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it.”

But of course I also think “theological belief matters” apart from its political consequences. The misery caused by bad theology is not restricted to politics. Any form of belief in something that is not true is gonna cause all kinds of problems in all areas of life.

Another way of approaching Quiros’s question is to note that certain theologies correspond nearly one-to-one with certain politics. Tell me your hermeneutics, and I can, nearly all of the time, guess what parts of “the same Bible” you will recite and what attributes you will attribute to “the same God.” And then — 99 times out of a hundred — I will also be able to guess your political beliefs on any given question. That’s correlation and not causation, and it doesn’t resolve the chicken/egg question of which way causation might flow.

Because this “theological crisis” is primarily an expression of hermeneutics — a divide over how to interpret and understand the Bible — it’s still tempting to imagine that there is some biblical resolution to this conflict. Alas, it won’t help to turn to the Bible to resolve this conflict because the very same conflict can be found within the Bible itself.

Like I said, this ain’t new. It’s as old as the Bible — as old as writing itself. (Probably older, it’s just not possible to find written evidence of that.) In trying to describe this conflict within the biblical canon I sometimes — half-jokingly borrowing terminology from fandom — refer to it as the debate between “Team Ezra” and “Team Ruth.” Or as the debate between “Team Jonah” and “Team Book of Jonah” — because the repugnant strawman character of Jonah was written to represent “Team Ezra” by an author who was squarely on “Team Ruth.”

Here’s a sense of that debate, and how I choose to negotiate it, from a post here 12 years ago on how “For Team Jonah, the Bible condemns interracial marriage“:

For these folks, “What does the Bible say about X?” is answered by searching out the passages that mention X and citing each of them as an authoritative, definitive statement answering that question. You know — clobber texts.

The premise of this practice is that the Bible is uniform and univocal. Every chapter and every verse is equally authoritative, and so they all must agree as part of a single, singular, consistent voice. The Bible cannot contradict itself, and so therefore any one verse speaks with the authority of the whole and to dismiss any one verse or passage is to dismiss the whole.

The alternative, of course, is to recognize that the Bible is a library — a collection of books, many of which are themselves anthologies collecting scores of other works — and that this library of texts contains a great diversity of opinions. The Bible presents us with arguments and disagreements — sometimes fierce disagreements between wholly incompatible ideas.

One of the biggest such disagreements is the heated argument that pervades much of the Bible between what I call Team Jonah and Team Book of Jonah. For Team Jonah, God’s plan of salvation is for the chosen few — the righteous elect. Ninevites and Pagan sailors need not apply. God picked Abraham and rejects everyone else. You can find this view presented, asserted and defended in a host of passages throughout the Bible.

But you can also find this view attacked, rebuffed and rebutted in a host of passages throughout the Bible. The book of Jonah is a polemic against this view. It was written to mock this view — to ridicule it as a ridiculous distortion of God and of our calling to follow God. Like many passages in the Bible, the book of Jonah argues that God’s plan of salvation is breathtakingly inclusive. Abraham was chosen by God, yes, but he was chosen by God as a vehicle to bring salvation to the whole world. For God so loved the cosmos.

Once you recognize and accept the presence of this argument throughout the Bible, you also come to see why the clobber-texting approach of the so-called conservatives doesn’t work. You come to see how the hunt-and-peck concordance word-study approach of the proof-texters is a lousy way to determine “What does the Bible say about X?”

Apply that approach to the question of interracial marriage and you’ll come across passages like the one above from the book of Ezra, which is something of a manifesto of Team Jonah. If you reject the reality of the Bible’s diversity and if you reject the idea that the Bible contains arguments, then you’re forced to regard such texts as authoritative and binding. “Separate yourselves from … foreign wives” becomes a religious command and a religious duty. Clobber-texters always wind up on Team Jonah, which is why, like Jonah himself, they always seem so perturbed.

The so-called conservatives tend to complain at this point that those of us who recognize and accept the diversity of the Bible are just picking and choosing the parts of the Bible that we like and ignoring the other parts. That complaint is quite a concession — an admission that we’re right about the diversity of the scriptures, because we wouldn’t be able to do what they’re accusing us of unless the Bible does, in fact, contain such an array of diverse perspectives.

But set that aside. Is that really what I’m suggesting? No. I don’t ignore the parts of the Bible that make the case for Team Jonah, I contend with them — I contend against them. Yes, it is true that there are parts of the Bible I don’t like, so I dislike them. Actively.

Given that the diversity of the Bible is a fact, this is the only honest approach. The long argument between Team Jonah and Team Book of Jonah presents two incompatible sides. I’m picking sides. I’m siding with one side of the argument against the other side. Anyone who thinks that constitutes dismissing or ignoring the other side doesn’t understand what the word “argument” means.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

February 2, 2025

Home and whole and 'back to normal'

Next Post

February 5, 2025 Postcards from America (02.05.25)

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"Asked about the firing, Trump autoritatively said "She's got problems. She's gonna have big problems. ..."

Ross

On the aesthetics of Saddam Hussein

"30 MILES AN HOUR??? I can't even bike anywhere near that fast. And yes, I ..."

Sue White

Always wear a helmet when skateboarding

"pretty sure that was a play on, wild west folk hero billy the kid, rather ..."

Seed of Bismuth 2024-11-05

On the aesthetics of Saddam Hussein

"it probably gold foil on porcelain, a solid gold toilet would have ended him decades ..."

Seed of Bismuth 2024-11-05

On the aesthetics of Saddam Hussein

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 "Shiloh" mean in Hebrew?

Select your answer to see how you score.

God’s dwelling Prince of peace He whose it is The chosen one