Biblical Truth in the Marketplace: MAGA Christianity vs. Process Theology

Biblical Truth in the Marketplace

MAGA Christianity vs. Process Theology

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT-5

Christian culture leaders continue the age old practice

of manufacturing a God and a faith in their own image...

By their fruits ye shall know them...

Matthew 7.16

Introduction

The phrase “biblical truth in the marketplace” has become popular among MAGA-Christian leaders. At first glance, it sounds noble - a call to live faithfully in public. But when examined closely, it reflects a worldview in which Scripture is reduced to a rigid ideology, wielded as a tool for political and cultural dominance. It suggests that the Bible is a fixed code of divine decrees, directly transferable into legislation and policy, with the goal of imposing “God’s will” on any society - especially a pluralistic society.

By contrast, Process Theology (e.g., Process Christianity) approaches truth as dynamic, relational, and rooted in God’s persuasive love. It does not treat the marketplace as a battlefield to be conquered, but as a shared commons where truth emerges in relationship, responsibility, and creative dialogue.

To understand the difference, we need to look at four key areas: how each views Scripture, the marketplace, authority, and ethics.

Matthew 7:16 is part of Jesus's teaching on false prophets, stating, "Do people pick grapes from thornbushes; figs from thistles?" This illustrates that just as a plant produces fruit in keeping with its nature, so too will false prophets be identified by their actions. The "fruit," or outward manifestations of their faith, will reveal their true character and actions, allowing people to recognize them for what they are.  

Context of the Verse

• Beware of False Prophets: Jesus instructs believers to be wary of false prophets who appear righteous on the outside but are inwardly corrupt, like wolves in sheep's clothing. 

• Identifying False Prophets: The verse follows the analogy of a good tree bearing good fruit and a bad tree bearing bad fruit, meaning a person's true nature is revealed through their actions and behavior. 

Meaning of the Metaphor

• Fruit as Actions/Character: The "fruit" symbolizes the outward manifestations of a person's faith, which includes their behavior and works.

• Nature of the Tree: Just as a healthy tree produces its respective fruit (grapes from grapevines, figs from fig trees), a person's true character will produce corresponding fruits.

• Revealing True Nature: Therefore, by observing the "fruit" of a person's life—their actions and deeds—you can recognize their true nature, whether they are a true prophet or a deceptive one.

---

One Bible Verse BLOWS UP MAGA's

False Version of "Christian Faith"

1. The MAGA Approach: Truth as Weapon

MAGA-Christianity treats the Bible primarily as a literal and static text. It is read selectively, with emphasis on passages that reinforce hierarchical structures, exclusionary norms, and culture-war talking points. The marketplace — whether of ideas, politics, or economics — is seen as a battleground where the faithful must “stand firm” against secularism, liberalism, and pluralism.

This approach assumes that biblical truth is self-evident, unchanging, and universally binding in exactly the same form as ancient Israelite law or early church instruction. Any deviation is condemned as compromise or apostasy. In practice, “truth” becomes a tool to mark insiders and outsiders, to reward loyalty, and to punish dissent.

The consequence is that truth is turned into a weapon: a way of controlling discourse, excluding difference, and justifying domination. Rather than engaging society with humility, MAGA Christianity approaches public life with suspicion and hostility, confident that its interpretation of Scripture alone represents God’s absolute will.

• Literalized Scripture: MAGA-Christianity often treats the Bible as an inerrant rulebook. Truth becomes propositional, absolute, and transferable into slogans.

• Marketplace as Battlefield: Public life is seen as a zero-sum contest where God’s people must impose biblical standards over against “the world.”

• Power over Love: The emphasis falls on enforcing “God’s truth” through legislation, rhetoric, and dominance, with little regard for diversity or dialogue.

This approach mirrors the very forms of religious nationalism Bonhoeffer opposed in Nazi Germany: the fusion of religion and political ideology into a weaponized faith.

---

2. The Process Approach: Truth as Relational Becoming

Process Theology begins with a different assumption: reality itself is processual, always becoming, always relational. Scripture, therefore, is not a frozen rulebook but a dynamic witness to humanity’s evolving encounter with God. Its authority lies not in literal fixity but in its ability to call communities into deeper love, justice, and creativity.

The marketplace in this vision is not a battlefield but a commons. It is a place where diverse voices meet, where truth is not imposed but discovered together through dialogue and interaction. Process thought insists that God’s truth is persuasive, not coercive — it invites but does not compel. This means truth must be tested in community, weighed by its fruits, and continually reinterpreted in light of new contexts.

Where MAGA-Christianity closes the circle around what truth was, process thought opens the circle toward what truth is becoming. It insists that God is still speaking, still drawing creation toward greater beauty, harmony, and justice.

• Dynamic Scripture: In a process lens, the Bible is not a static code but a living witness to humanity’s evolving encounter with God. Its authority lies not in literal fixity but in its power to inspire justice, compassion, and creativity.

• Marketplace as Community: Rather than a battlefield, the marketplace is a shared space of dialogue and mutual influence. Truth is discerned in relationship, tested by its fruits of love and justice.

• Love over Power: In process thought, God’s truth is persuasive, not coercive. It calls humanity into cooperative becoming, not conquest.

Here, truth is not owned but shared. It does not silence the other but invites all voices into the work of co-creation.

---

3. Competing Visions of Authority

The difference in how each side understands authority is stark.

• MAGA Christianity: Authority is rooted in the literal text of the Bible, interpreted through the lens of conservative tradition and enforced by political power. This results in a rigid hierarchy: God speaks → the Bible records → we enforce. In this model, authority is top-down and unquestionable. Dissent is framed as rebellion against God himself.

• Process Theology: Authority is rooted in Christ as the living Word, mediated through Scripture but always discerned in context. Authority is relational and dialogical — God calls, but humans respond freely and responsibly. Scripture is authoritative, but never in isolation from conscience, community, and the Spirit’s ongoing work in history.

This difference leads to two contrasting visions of the marketplace. For MAGA Christianity, authority justifies domination; for Process Theology, authority enables dialogue and growth. One uses power to enforce compliance; the other seeks understanding and cooperation.

• MAGA Christianity: Authority rests in the literal text, interpreted through the lens of cultural conservatism and political power.

• Process Theology: Authority rests in Christ as the living Word, continually interpreted in context, always calling communities toward justice, compassion, and creative transformation.

Where MAGA-Christianity seeks to fix truth in the past, process thought seeks to embody truth in the present, always open to God’s ongoing call.

---

4. Ethics in the Marketplace

Ethics is where the contrast becomes most visible.

• MAGA Ethics: Right and wrong are defined by conformity to fixed codes. Success is measured by victory in cultural battles: passing laws, winning elections, controlling school boards, restricting rights. The guiding question is: Are we winning the fight to preserve biblical values against our enemies? This produces a binary ethic of winners and losers, insiders and outsiders.

• Process Ethics: Right and wrong are discerned through love’s reach and creativity’s expansion. Success is measured by whether actions increase the well-being of all — human and nonhuman, individual and communal. The guiding question is: Does this action contribute to justice, compassion, and the flourishing of life? This produces an ethic of cooperation, responsibility, and mutual care.

Where MAGA Christianity divides the marketplace into opposing camps, Process Theology seeks to weave it into a shared commons. One works to preserve dominance; the other works to foster relational wholeness.

• MAGA’s Ethics: Obedience is measured by conformity to rigid codes. The goal is victory — protecting “our” values against “theirs.”

• Process Ethics: Responsibility is measured by love’s reach and creativity’s expansion. The goal is cooperation — seeking the good of all in an interdependent world.

In short: MAGA ethics divides the marketplace into winners and losers; process ethics opens it into a shared commons of becoming.

---

Conclusion

When MAGA-Christian leaders speak of “biblical truth in the marketplace,” they mean a static truth wielded for political control. It is truth as weapon: exclusionary, rigid, and triumphalist. Process Theology offers a different vision: truth as relational becoming, discerned in community, tested by love, and persuasive rather than coercive.

The contrast could not be sharper. One approach seeks to control the marketplace; the other seeks to transform it into a commons where God’s truth is lived out in justice, compassion, and creativity.

Summary Observation: If truth is to have meaning in public life, it cannot be reduced to slogans of power. It must be lived in the costly, dynamic work of relationship. Biblical truth in the marketplace is not about conquest but about co-creation. It is not about controlling society but about participating with God in its ongoing renewal.

---

Bibliography

MAGA-Christianity / Culture War Sources

(Useful to understand the mindset and rhetoric, even if problematic)

• Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Thomas Nelson, 2010).

  • Key text for how Bonhoeffer is repurposed in evangelical/MAGA narratives.

• Eric Metaxas, Letter to the American Church (Salem Books, 2022).

  • Explicitly frames today’s America as a replay of 1930s Germany, urging Christians to resist “cultural capitulation.”

• David Barton, The Myth of Separation (WallBuilder Press, 1992).

  • An influential but deeply flawed book promoting the idea of America as a “Christian nation.”

• Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Canon Press, 2022).

  • A systematic argument for merging Christianity with political control in the U.S.

---

Process Theology & Alternatives to Culture War

• Tripp Ruller, The Rise of Bonhoeffer, multi-series podcast

• John B. Cobb Jr., Christ in a Pluralistic Age (Westminster, 1975).

  • A classic in Process Christology, emphasizing relational truth and interreligious dialogue.

• Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, God, Christ, Church: A Practical Guide to Process Theology (Crossroad, 1982).

  • A clear introduction to Process Theology’s dynamic view of truth, ethics, and community.

• Catherine Keller, On the Mystery: Discerning Divinity in Process (Fortress, 2008).

  • Explores relational truth, pluralism, and public theology in a process framework.

• Thomas Jay Oord, The Uncontrolling Love of God (IVP Academic, 2015).

  • Though not strictly process-only, it extends relational/process insights into theology of love and freedom.

• Bruce Epperly, Process Theology: Embracing Adventure with God (Energion, 2011).

  • A very accessible introduction that connects process thought with daily ethical and public life.

---

Broader Critiques / Contextual Works

• Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation (Liveright, 2020).

  • Essential for understanding evangelicalism’s drift into Christian nationalism.

• Samuel L. Perry & Andrew L. Whitehead, Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States (Oxford, 2020).

  • Academic sociological study of Christian nationalism as an ideology.

• Stephen R. Haynes, The Battle for Bonhoeffer: Debating Discipleship in the Age of Trump (Eerdmans, 2018).

  • Directly addresses how Bonhoeffer has been claimed by both MAGA Christianity and progressive theology.

---

✅ Summary Observation:

• If you want to see how “biblical truth in the marketplace” is weaponized → Metaxas, Wolfe, Barton.

• If you want to see how Process Theology reframes truth relationally and non-coercively → Cobb, Suchocki, Keller, Oord, Epperly.

• If you want context and critique of the culture war itself → Du Mez, Perry/Whitehead, Haynes.

Bonhoeffer's Legacy Defies Maga-Christianity's Mis-Use

Bonhoeffer's Legacy Defies

Maga-Christianity's Mis-Use

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT-5

Christian culture leaders continue the age old practice

of manufacturing a God and a faith in their own image...

By their fruits ye shall know them...

Matthew 7.16

I'm not a fan of Eric Metaxas who wrote a "shaded" (not shady, tho' perhaps it is) biography on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Currently he's stumping about maga-Christian circles speaking to "biblical truth in  the marketplace" which is a lot of huey based upon maga-Christusnity's literalized view of their Bible. So I asked Chatbot as to it's thoughts or comments on the subject and this is what Chatbot and I came up with....

---

Me

Chat, what's your thoughts on the subject that Christian culture leaders have manufactured a God and a faith in their image?

ChatGPT

Yes, I share your concerns. Eric Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy is widely read, but among scholars of Bonhoeffer it’s considered “shaded,” as you put it—presented with a selective lens that tends to fit contemporary culture-war agendas rather than Bonhoeffer’s own complex theological and ethical context.

---

Framing the Discussion

1. Bonhoeffer’s Own Witness

• Bonhoeffer’s resistance to Hitler wasn’t grounded in a “literalized” biblicism, but in a deep Christocentric ethic of costly grace (Nachfolge / Discipleship).

• His theology was profoundly relational and incarnational: Christ present in community, in suffering, and in the neighbor. That makes him hard to “weaponize” for a movement centered on political domination.

• He also emphasized responsibility before God and others, not rigid proof-texting.

2. Metaxas’s Portrayal

• Metaxas tends to flatten Bonhoeffer into an evangelical hero-figure, casting him as a proto-culture-warrior who validates a conservative “biblical truth in the marketplace” approach.

• Historians such as Clifford Green, Victoria Barnett, and Charles Marsh have noted that this misrepresents Bonhoeffer’s theology, cutting him off from his Lutheran, ecumenical, and even progressive impulses.

3. MAGA-Christian Context

• The language of “biblical truth in the marketplace” in MAGA-Christian circles often amounts to a literalist, triumphalist rhetoric: “our Bible, our truth, our politics.”

• Bonhoeffer would have opposed precisely this conflation of God’s Word with nationalistic ideology. In Letters and Papers from Prison, he warns against religion used as a tool of power, advocating instead for a “religionless Christianity” that seeks the neighbor’s good and lives under Christ’s lordship without grasping for control.

4. The Deeper Irony

• To invoke Bonhoeffer in support of authoritarian or exclusionary politics turns his witness upside down. He stood against state-sanctioned ideology masquerading as Christianity.

• His true legacy is prophetic courage: the willingness to suffer, even unto death, for love of Christ and solidarity with the oppressed. That is radically different from “biblical truth as market slogan.”

---

✅ Summary

In my estimation, I’d say: Metaxas offers a popularized Bonhoeffer that resonates with evangelical culture warriors, but it strips away the depth of his theology and the nuance of his resistance. It’s closer to propaganda than to serious biography. - ChatGPT

---

Me

Create a side-by-side comparison of Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer vs. Scholarly Bonhoeffer, so the contrasts are clear.

---

Bonhoeffer: Metaxas vs. Scholarly Portrait

1. Theological Orientation

• Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer:

  • Cast as a proto-evangelical, with strong affinities to American conservative Protestantism.

  • Emphasis on “biblical inerrancy,” personal piety, and simple moral clarity.

  • Downplays Bonhoeffer’s academic theology (Lutheran, Barthian, ecumenical roots).

• Scholarly Bonhoeffer:

  • Deeply shaped by German Lutheranism, Barth’s Christocentrism, and ecumenical theology.

  • Theology is complex, dialectical, and incarnational — Christ encountered in community and in the “other.”

  • Wrote about costly grace (discipleship requiring suffering and obedience) and “religionless Christianity” (faith beyond culture-bound religiosity).

---

2. Political Engagement

• Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer:

  • Portrayed as a clear, almost lone prophet standing against Hitler.

  • Becomes a poster-child for “speaking truth to power” in ways that resonate with MAGA-Christian culture wars.

  • Simplified into a battle of “true believers” vs. secular/evil forces.

• Scholarly Bonhoeffer:

  • His resistance grew gradually and painfully, rooted in theological wrestling and communal discernment.

  • Was part of the Confessing Church movement, not an isolated hero.

  • Emphasized ethical responsibility before God and community, not a culture-war stance.

---

3. Use of Scripture

• Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer:

  • Depicted as relying on literalized “biblical truth” — a direct link to contemporary evangelical proof-texting.

  • Often implied that Bonhoeffer validates present-day “Bible in the marketplace” slogans.

• Scholarly Bonhoeffer:

  • Scripture read Christocentrically, not literalistically.

  • The Word is always mediated through Christ and interpreted in community.

  • His approach to the Bible was dynamic, ethical, and incarnational rather than rigid.

---

4. View of Christianity

• Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer:

  • Christianity is framed as moral clarity and heroic faith against secularism.

  • Fits neatly into the narrative of “Christian America” vs. enemies of God.

• Scholarly Bonhoeffer:

  • Christianity is lived in weakness, suffering, and responsibility — “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.”

  • Acknowledges ambiguity, failure, and costly obedience rather than triumphal certainty.

  • “Religionless Christianity” critiques any political/religious fusion.

---

5. Legacy

• Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer:

  • Inspirational hero, mobilized for American evangelical and MAGA culture-war battles.

  • Becomes a symbolic validation of “fighting back” with God on one’s side.

• Scholarly Bonhoeffer:

  • Martyr who points toward humility, solidarity with the oppressed, and faithful resistance to tyranny.

  • His theology resists being co-opted by any ideology — left, right, or otherwise.

  • Legacy is about prophetic witness in love, not weaponizing faith.

---

✅ Summary

Metaxas presents a Bonhoeffer made in the image of American evangelical culture wars — simplified, heroic, and mobilized. Scholars present Bonhoeffer as a complex, Christ-centered thinker whose legacy warns precisely against the fusion of political ideology with religious certainty.

---

Bonhoeffer’s Words that Resist Fusion with MAGA-Christian Misuse and Abuse

1. On Grace & Discipleship

• MAGA Misuse: Bonhoeffer as a symbol of “moral clarity” and nationalistic defense of “biblical truth.”

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” (The Cost of Discipleship)

  • True discipleship is costly, involving suffering and loss — not triumphalist slogans or political conquest.

---

2. On Religion as Power

• MAGA Misuse: Christianity equated with political power and cultural dominance.

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “What keeps gnawing at me is the question, what is Christianity, or who is Christ actually for us today?” (Letters and Papers from Prison)
  “We are moving towards a completely religionless age.”

  • Bonhoeffer warns against fusing Christianity with cultural/political power. He sought a faith stripped of domination, grounded in Christ’s presence with the suffering.

---

3. On Community

• MAGA Misuse: Faith used as an individualistic “truth weapon” in the marketplace.

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “The church is the church only when it exists for others… not dominating, but helping and serving.” (Letters and Papers from Prison)

  • Christianity is relational and outward-facing, not a tool for control or exclusion.

---

4. On Truth & Lies

• MAGA Misuse: Claiming monopoly on “truth” while aligning with manipulative politics.

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the opposite direction.” (Ethics)

  • Truth isn’t about slogans; it’s about living responsibly before God, even when it means opposing one’s own cultural tribe.

---

5. On Responsibility

• MAGA Misuse: Casting themselves as persecuted heroes while wielding power.

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” (Letters and Papers from Prison)

  • Faith is not self-martyring theater — it is accountable, ethical responsibility to God and neighbor.

---

6. On Power & Weakness

• MAGA Misuse: Strength and domination framed as “God’s will.”

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “God lets himself be pushed out of the world on to the cross. He is weak and powerless in the world, and that is precisely the way, the only way, in which he is with us and helps us.” (Letters and Papers from Prison)

  • God’s presence is in vulnerability, not triumphalist displays of power.

---

✅ Summary

Bonhoeffer’s own words consistently undermine the ways he is being recruited by MAGA-Christianity. His Christ is one of costly grace, weakness, and solidarity with the suffering — not a culture-war general.

---

Conclusion

The true Bonhoeffer cannot be reconciled with the agenda of MAGA-Christianity. His writings dismantle the very fusion of religion and nationalism that many seek to justify by invoking his name.

Bonhoeffer’s legacy is not a call to culture war but a summons to costly discipleship, to a church that exists for others, to truth that resists manipulation, and to a God revealed in weakness and suffering love. To misappropriate Bonhoeffer for partisan battles is to silence the very witness for which he lived and died.

Bonhoeffer’s witness speaks clearly: Christianity is not about seizing control but about sharing in Christ’s suffering for the sake of the world. His life is a rebuke to those who would wield the Bible as a weapon of domination. If he speaks to us today, it is not to baptize the church's culture wars but to call us into a deeper, more sacrificial way of following Christ.

---

The Rise of Bonhoeffer

Bibliography

Here’s a bibliography of widely respected Bonhoeffer biographies and studies, followed by Eric Metaxas’s version for contrast. I’ve grouped them for clarity:

---

Respected Scholarly Biographies on Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Classic / Authoritative Biographies

• Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography (Fortress Press, rev. 2000; first German ed. 1967).

  • The definitive, monumental biography by Bonhoeffer’s close friend and student. Exhaustive, detailed, and indispensable.

• Ferdinand Schlingensiepen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906–1945: Martyr, Thinker, Man of Resistance (T&T Clark, 2010).

  • A scholarly yet accessible biography, widely praised as the best modern single-volume study.

Accessible & Reliable Biographies

• Tripp Ruller, The Rise of Bonhoeffer, multi-series podcast

• Mary Bosanquet, The Life and Death of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Harper & Row, 1969).

  • A concise, readable introduction for general readers.

• Victoria J. Barnett, For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest Against Hitler (Oxford University Press, 1992).

  • Not exclusively a biography, but an excellent contextual study situating Bonhoeffer within the Confessing Church.

• Charles Marsh, Strange Glory: A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Knopf, 2014).

  • A well-written, literary-style biography. It stirred some debate among scholars for interpretation choices, but remains reliable and nuanced.

• Stephen R. Haynes, The Battle for Bonhoeffer: Debating Discipleship in the Age of Trump (Eerdmans, 2018).

  • Explores how Bonhoeffer is misappropriated in contemporary American politics, particularly by the religious right.

---

Bonhoeffer’s Own Writings (Essential for Biographical Insight)

• Letters and Papers from Prison (Fortress, various editions).

• The Cost of Discipleship (Nachfolge) (SCM/Fortress).

• Life Together (Gemeinsames Leben).

• Ethics.

These are crucial for letting Bonhoeffer “speak for himself” and provide an antidote to distorted portrayals.

---

Eric Metaxas’s Version (Popular but Problematic)

• Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Thomas Nelson, 2010).

  • A New York Times bestseller, widely read in evangelical and MAGA-Christian circles.

  • Criticized by Bonhoeffer scholars for its selective interpretation, inaccuracies, and tendency to portray Bonhoeffer as an American-style evangelical culture warrior.

---

✅ Recommendation:

For depth and accuracy, start with Bethge or Schlingensiepen. For readability, Marsh is strong. For critique of misuse, Haynes is invaluable. Metaxas is useful only as an example of how Bonhoeffer has been co-opted.

Why Does the Bible Portray God as One of Wrath, Death and Destruction?

Why Does the Bible Portray God as One

of Wrath, Death and Destruction?

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT-5

A continuation from the last essay:

The Deep History of Jericho

Joshua 6 - The Fall of Jericho

26 Joshua laid an oath on them at that time,

saying, “Cursed before the Lord be the man who

rises up and rebuilds this city, Jericho.

“At the cost of his firstborn

shall he lay its foundation,

and at the cost of his youngest son

shall he set up its gates.”

27 So the Lord was with Joshua,

and his fame was in all the land.

---

I

Background

Wikipedia - The Fall of Jericho (Joshua)

According to the Book of Joshua, when the Israelites were encamped at Shittim opposite Jericho, ready to cross the river, Joshua, as a final preparation, sent out two spies to Jericho. The spies stayed in the house of Rahab, a local prostitute. The king of Jericho sent soldiers who asked Rahab to bring out the spies. Instead, she hid them under bundles of flax on the roof. After escaping, the spies promised to spare Rahab and her family after taking the city, if she would mark her house by hanging a red cord out the window.

After the Israelites crossed the Jordan, the king of Jericho ordered that the gates of the walls be closed. God commanded Joshua to go around the walls of Jericho for six days, once every day, and seven times on the seventh day. God commanded the city to be attacked by seven priests blowing horns, with the Ark of the Covenant in front of them and all the people behind the Ark of the Covenant. They encircled the wall of Jericho once a day for the first six days, and then encircled the city seven times on the seventh day. After the shofar (horn) sounded a great blow, the Israelites shouted, and the city walls fell beneath them.

Following God's law, the Israelites killed every man and woman, the young and the old, as well as the oxen, sheep, and donkeys. Only Rahab, her parents, brothers and all "those who belonged to her" were spared. They were incorporated into Israel. Joshua then cursed anybody who rebuilt the foundations and gates, with the deaths of their firstborn and youngest child respectively. This was eventually fulfilled by Hiel the Bethelite under King Ahab's reign.

Academic consensus

A minority of scholars maintain that the biblical account is historical and that an Israelite conquest of Jericho may have occurred around the 13th century BCE,^[17][18] but the strong consensus among scholars is that the Book of Joshua holds little historical value.^[19] Its origin lies in a time far removed from the times that it depicts,^[20] and its intention is primarily theological in detailing how Israel and her leaders are judged by their obedience to the teachings and laws (the covenant) set down in the Book of Deuteronomy.^[21] The story of Jericho and the rest of the conquest represents the nationalist propaganda of the Kingdom of Judah and their claims to the territory of the Kingdom of Israel after 722 BCE;^[3] and that those chapters were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua likely written late in the reign of King Josiah (reigned 640–609  BCE), and the book was revised and completed after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586 BCE, and possibly after the return from the Babylonian exile in 538 BCE.^[22] According to Ann E. Killebrew, "Most scholars today accept that the majority of the conquest narratives in the book of Joshua are devoid of historical reality".^[23]

---

Do Christians use God to justify evil?

II

Are God's People Devoted to Destruction?

The Book of Joshua contains several passages where God is portrayed as commanding Israel to kill or “devote to destruction” (ḥerem, חֵרֶם) the inhabitants of Canaanite cities. These are among the most difficult and contested texts in the Hebrew Bible because of their violence.

Here’s a structured list of the main “killing” verses in Joshua (where the command is attributed to God or enacted under divine instruction):

---

Commands from God

These are passages where the narrator attributes commands directly to YHWH.

1. Joshua 6:17–21 (Jericho)

The city and all that is in it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction… They devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword.

2. Joshua 8:1–2, 24–26 (Ai)

The LORD said to Joshua, “Do not fear… I have given into your hand the king of Ai, his people, his city, and his land.”

Later, the Israelites struck down all the inhabitants of Ai, leaving none alive, about twelve thousand men and women.

3. Joshua 10:8–11, 28–40 (Southern Campaign)

The LORD said to Joshua, “Do not fear them, for I have given them into your hands.”

The Israelites defeated the Amorite coalition, and the text repeats: “He left none remaining, but devoted to destruction all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded” (10:40).

4. Joshua 11:6, 10–15 (Northern Campaign)

The LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid of them… you shall hamstring their horses and burn their chariots.”

Joshua captured Hazor, struck its king, and “struck with the sword all who were in it, devoting them to destruction; there was none left that breathed” (11:11).

Summary verse: “As the LORD had commanded Moses his servant, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD had commanded Moses.” (11:15).

---

Narrative Summaries

These passages condense multiple campaigns, presenting them as divinely sanctioned or completed.

• Joshua 10:40–42

“So Joshua struck the whole land… He left none remaining, but devoted to destruction all that breathed, just as the LORD God of Israel commanded.”

• Joshua 11:16–23

“So Joshua took all that land… And Joshua made war a long time with all those kings… For it was the LORD’s doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction.”

---

Key Hebrew Concept: ḥerem

The repeated term is ḥerem (חֵרֶם), usually translated “devoted to destruction.” It implies a ritualized extermination — total removal from human use and consecration to God, often by killing. This is not mere warfare; it is portrayed as sacred violence.

---

Summary

The main “killing verses” in Joshua are:

• Jericho (Joshua 6:17–21)

• Ai (Joshua 8:24–26)

• Southern Campaign (Joshua 10:28–40)

• Northern Campaign (Joshua 11:6–15)

• Summary Statements (Joshua 10:40–42; 11:16–23)

These are the core texts where the LORD is explicitly said to order or approve total destruction.

---

At what point should we question our idea of God?

III

How Should God be Understood?

⚖️ From a theological, literary, and historical perspective, these verses have been deeply debated — whether as historical memory, ideological justification, mythic narrative, or theological metaphor. Many modern interpreters (especially in Jewish and Christian theology today) see them as problematic and in need of reframing.

---

⚖️ The line in Joshua 11:20 is one of the most striking and troubling:

“For it was the LORD’s doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy, but be exterminated, just as the LORD commanded Moses.”

---

Why It’s Troubling:

1. Parallels with Pharaoh (Exodus)

   • The same language is used in Exodus about Pharaoh: “the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart” (Exod. 9:12; 10:20, etc.).

   • In both cases, it seems to remove human agency: God ensures the opponent resists, thereby justifying their destruction.

2. Theological Problem

   • It portrays God as not only permitting violence but orchestrating it.

   • This raises questions of divine justice: why would God cause resistance just to destroy those people?

3. Literary Function

   • In the narrative, it functions to absolve Israel of moral responsibility: they are not wiping out innocent people, but fulfilling God’s decree.

   • It reinforces the idea of ḥerem (total devotion to destruction) as divinely mandated, not a political choice.

4. Historical/Anthropological Lens

   • Scholars often see this as ideological war language. Ancient Near Eastern inscriptions (Moabite, Assyrian, Egyptian) use the same rhetoric: “the gods hardened their hearts” or “the gods devoted them to destruction.”

   • It elevates military victory into a sacred act, turning conquest into cosmic destiny.

---

Process / Modern Readings

• Process Theology: A process view would resist the idea of God coercively hardening hearts. Instead, it might interpret these verses as Israel’s projection of divine will onto their history, an ancient attempt to explain the chaos of war.

• Literary-Theological Reframing: Many theologians read these texts as mythic war rhetoric, not literal history. The texts express Israel’s desire to see their survival as God’s doing, but those same texts also expose the danger of using God-language to justify violence.

---

✨ Summary Observation: The “hardening of hearts” in Joshua is not unique but part of a biblical motif that raises questions of freedom, divine justice, and violence. In Exodus, it’s Pharaoh; in Joshua, it’s the Canaanites. In both, the effect is to heighten God’s power but at the cost of human mercy.

---

How we have manufactured God into our own justifying Image

IV

Is God a God of War and Destruction or a God of Love?

The question sits at the very heart of the Bible’s tensions — and it is as old as Israel’s wrestling with its own story. Let me lay it out carefully, in several perspectives:

---

1. The Two Portraits of God in Scripture

• God as Warrior

  • In texts like Joshua, Exodus, Judges, and some Psalms, God is portrayed as a warrior leading Israel in battle, destroying enemies, and commanding ḥerem (“devotion to destruction”).

  • Example: “The LORD is a man of war; the LORD is his name” (Exod. 15:3).

  • These passages reflect a tribal, survival-oriented context: Israel, a vulnerable people, saw their God as one who fought for them.

• God as Loving and Merciful

  • Other passages stress love, compassion, forgiveness, and covenantal mercy.

  • Example: “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Exod. 34:6).

  • In later prophetic voices and in Jesus’ teachings, this vision of God dominates: love of enemy, justice, compassion for the poor, healing, restoration.

---

2. Why the Contrast Exists

• Historical Layering: The Bible isn’t one book but a library, written over centuries by many communities. Each reflected a religious society's own fears, needs, and visions. As an ancient motif, such religious mindsets fall in line with Israel's neighbors who likewise had gods of destruction and warfare.

• Projection of Human Struggles: Ancient peoples often projected their wars into divine terms: if they won, God must have willed it. This is often the case with (binary) mindsets formed between "winners and losers."

• Evolving Theology: Israel’s understanding of God deepened over time. The God who once seemed tribal and violent gradually became the universal God of justice and compassion. Unfortunately, the church has continued this ancient mindset in its prosecution of its "divine cause" of oppression and warfare.

---

3. The Problem of “Hardening Hearts”

• Verses like Joshua 11:20 make God appear as the author of destruction.

• Process theologians (and many modern interpreters) would say: these are Israel’s words about God, not God’s eternal nature. They reflect ancient war-ideology more than divine reality.

• If we take seriously the New Testament claim that “God is love” (1 John 4:8), then the warrior-God imagery must be understood as a stage in humanity’s growing but imperfect perception of the divine.

---

4. Process View: God as Persuasive, Not Coercive

• In process thought, God never acts by unilateral coercion. God lures, invites, calls — but does not harden hearts in the sense of overriding human agency.

• Thus, the “God of war” stories are human interpretations of historical trauma. They are part of Scripture, but not the final word.

• The final word is relational love: God as companion, healer, and co-sufferer with creation.

---

5. A Synthesis

• The Bible gives us both portraits:

  • God as warrior (human projection in times of war).

  • God as love (a deeper unveiling of God’s actual nature).

• To reconcile them, we might say:

  • God is not the author of destruction.

  • But humans in ancient times interpreted survival through war as God’s doing.

  • Over time, God’s true nature — love — broke through more clearly, culminating in Christ, who revealed God not with a sword, but on a cross.

---

✨ Summary Observation: God is not essentially a God of war and destruction; those images reflect human projection in violent times. At God’s core, revealed most fully in Jesus and affirmed in process theology, God is love — always relational, always inviting, always healing.

---

Does Christianity serve a God of bloodshed and warfare?

V

Why Does the Christian Bible End with a Violent God of Warfare?

The question we might ask ourselves as Christians then, is "Why does the Christian bible end in God's warfare upon the world?" Doesn't this reinforce the ancient mindset that "My God is bigger than your God?" And that "We are the ones who are holy and you are not? Thus, you are worthy to be put to death?"

In making these statements we are naming a real and urgent problem — one that many readers, scholars, and believers have wrestled with for centuries: parts of the Bible (especially apocalyptic literature) use war imagery and divine violence in ways that can sound, and have been used, like cosmic triumphalism: “my God wins, your people die.” That anxiety — that Scripture can reinforce an us-vs-them holy violence — is historically grounded and morally serious.

Below, let's try to be direct and practical: comparing what the biblical evidence actually does, explain how many faithful readers interpret it, point out the dangers of triumphalist readings, and offer alternative theological moves (including resources) we might use if one wants an account of God that resists divine or human violence.

---

What the Bible actually does at the end

• The New Testament book of Revelation contains vivid battle imagery (e.g., the rider on the white horse and the defeat of the beast in chapters like Revelation 19). Those images read like cosmic warfare.

• But the conclusion of Revelation is not endless warfare. The book ends with a vision of new creation: “a new heaven and a new earth” where God dwells with people, death is no more, and suffering is healed (Revelation 21–22). The final scenes picture restoration and intimacy, not perpetual bloodshed.

  • Example: “He will wipe away every tear… death shall be no more.” (Revelation 21:4)

  • The closing hymn and invitation (Rev 22) emphasize water of life, healing, and welcome, not eternal extermination.

So the apocalyptic imagery contains warfare metaphors, but the terminal vision — the book’s telos (proposed future) — is restorative: healing, dwelling, and renewed creation.

---

Why the violent language exists (historical and literary reasons)

1. Apocalyptic genre: Revelation is part of a literary genre filled with symbols, cosmic conflict metaphors, and coded language intended to encourage persecuted communities. It’s often poetic and symbolic, not a battle plan.

2. Ancient honor/tribal worldview: Ancient peoples often thought of divine action as martial because they lived in war-saturated worlds. Claiming “my God fights for us” was a way of narrating survival.

3. Polemic function: Some violent imagery condemns oppressive powers (Rome, imperial cult, corrupt elites). It can be read as God’s judgment on oppression rather than a license to slaughter ordinary people.

4. Narrative theology: Victory language expresses hope that wrongdoing and injustice will not have the last word; it’s framed in apocalyptic metaphors of divine triumph.

---

Why this language is dangerous (and has been used badly)

• Triumphalism & Supremacy: If read plainly as “our God is bigger → you are unholy → therefore kill or subjugate,” the text can be (and has been) used to justify genocide, colonialism, forced conversions, and ethnic/religious violence.

• Theology of exclusion: Read literally and triumphally, such texts can sanctify the idea that some humans are “divotable” — morally and theologically unacceptable.

• Moral mismatch with Jesus: Jesus’ teachings (love enemies, turn the other cheek) make a literal, violent reading ethically problematic for Christians who want to be faithful to him.

---

How many religious readers and traditions respond

There are several major ways Christians have reframed or resisted a violent reading:

1. Historicist / literal warrior reading — (rare today among responsible theologians) treats Revelation’s battles as literal future wars and can encourage militaristic theology. This is where triumphalist danger is greatest.

2. Preterist / contextual reading — sees Revelation as symbolic of first-century struggles (e.g., Rome’s domination) and not a template for killing people today. It reads the “enemy” as imperial powers and systemic evil.

3. Idealist / symbolic reading — reads the visions as timeless symbols of the struggle between good and evil, not instructions for violence.

4. Christ-centered / ethical corrective — emphasizes Jesus’ nonviolence and reframes apocalyptic “war” language as God’s judgment on injustice, not on ordinary people. The goal is restorative justice, not annihilation.

5. Process theology & nonviolent eschatologies — deny that God acts coercively; instead God is persuasive and works to heal. Apocalypse images are human-language about ultimate hope, not divine violence. Thinkers like John Cobb and David Griffin develop nonviolent eschatologies.

6. Universalist or apokatastasis readings — some theologians (ancient: Origen; modern: advocates of universal reconciliation) interpret the goal as ultimate restoration of all—again undermining a theology of permanent divine extermination.

---

A constructive theological reframing (short)

• The violent imagery functions rhetorically: it confronts injustice with the language of final accountability.

• It is not necessarily a literal mandate for believers to enact violence; when Christians follow Jesus, the ethic is transformation and reconciliation, not extermination.

• Ethical hermeneutic: read troubling texts through the core revelation of God’s character shown in Jesus — love, vulnerability, and nonviolent self-giving. Passages that conflict with that core should be reread as products of culture, polemic, or genre rather than fixed divine commands to violence.

---

Practical implications (what you can do with this)

• If you study or teach these texts, always pair apocalyptic passages with Jesus’ ethics (e.g., Sermon on the Mount) and with restorative readings of Revelation 21–22.

• Push back on any preaching that uses Joshua or Revelation to sanctify violence; insist that historical context and literary genre matter.

• Advocate for readings that hold accountable oppressive systems (structural evil) rather than demonizing actual human groups.

• Use nonviolent theological resources to form faith communities resistant to religious violence.

---

Recommended starting readings / thinkers (scholarly + theological alternatives)

• On Revelation & apocalyptic: Elaine Pagels (Revelations), Adela Yarbro Collins (works on Revelation), N. T. Wright (readable treatments of Revelation in context).

• On violent texts in the Old Testament: Walter Brueggemann (prophetic and critical readings), Philip Davies (historical-critical perspectives).

• Nonviolent / process theology and reconciliation: John B. Cobb Jr., David Ray Griffin, and for universalist lines Gregory of Nyssa / Origen (historical) and modern theologians who explore universal reconciliation.

• Ethics of nonviolence: René Girard (violence, scapegoating, and sacrificial structures), Stanley Hauerwas (Christian nonviolence), Walter Wink (powers and principalities, Christus Victor reinterpreted nonviolently).

---

VI

Final, candid answer to the question of violence

Does the Bible end in God’s warfare against the world and therefore reinforce “my God vs your God” holy violence?

Not necessarily — it contains warfare imagery, and certain texts have been used to promote that tribal, violent view. But Revelation’s final vision is restorative (new creation). More importantly: the deepest and most credible Christian claim about God — as revealed in Jesus and affirmed by many mature theological traditions — is that God turns toward love, healing, and the transformation of enemies, not their annihilation. The texts that sound like triumphalist divine warfare are historically and rhetorically situated; read thoughtfully, they can critique empire and oppression rather than license human killing.

1. The Surface Problem

Yes — when read straightforwardly, the Christian Bible appears to end with God’s violence. Revelation’s battle scenes, culminating in the lake of fire and the destruction of enemies, can sound like the ultimate “my God is bigger than your God” story. That framing has, tragically, been used to sanctify exclusion, coercion, and even genocide in Christian history.

If this is the final word, then the Bible seems to circle back to the most ancient, tribal vision: our God kills, your people die.

---

2. The Narrative Tension

But the Bible itself resists this flat reading. Revelation doesn’t end in warfare. After the conflict imagery comes the New Jerusalem — the climactic picture is not carnage but healing:

• “The leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.” (Rev. 22:2)

• God wipes away tears, removes death, and welcomes all who thirst to drink freely of the water of life (Rev. 21:4–6).

So the text moves through conflict imagery but lands on restoration. The final tone is not one of endless holy war but of renewed creation and reconciled dwelling.

---

3. Why the Imagery of War Persists

• Genre: Revelation is apocalyptic, and apocalyptic speech is filled with cosmic battle imagery. It was the “political cartooning” of its day — meant to shock, encourage, and dramatize the fall of oppressive powers.

• Context: First-century Christians lived under Rome’s crushing empire. To them, God’s triumph meant Rome’s downfall. They borrowed the only language they had: war.

• Polemic, not blueprint: The war metaphors are less about telling Christians to kill, and more about assuring them that oppression will not win forever.

---

4. The Real Risk

Still, the danger is real: readers who flatten this imagery into a literal “holy war” see God as the ultimate tribal deity, sanctifying violence against “the other.” This reinforces the ancient mindset you named — that holiness belongs only to “us” and death is the fate of “them.”

This risk is not hypothetical; it has shaped crusades, colonialism, and nationalist theologies. That is why this question cannot be ignored.

---

5. A Reframed Reading

• God’s warfare = God’s judgment on injustice, not on people groups. The “enemies” in Revelation are empires, systems, and symbols of oppression (Babylon, the Beast), not ethnic neighbors.

• The true final act is healing. The story does not stop at the battlefield but moves to a city where death, mourning, and pain are no more.

• Jesus is the interpretive key. The warrior-Lamb imagery is paradoxical: the Lamb conquers not by violence, but by suffering, self-giving, and resurrection.

---

6. Candid Answer, Expanded

So: Yes, if read literally and triumphalistically, Revelation reinforces the most dangerous ancient mindset — God as warrior, us as holy, them as expendable. But No, that need not be its message. The deeper current of the Christian Bible — crystallized in Jesus — is that God conquers not by killing, but by absorbing violence and transforming it into life.

The final vision of Scripture is not “my God is bigger than your God,” but “Behold, I make all things new.” (Rev. 21:5).

---

👉 In other words, the Bible contains the old war-God voice, but it ends by transforming that voice into a vision of cosmic renewal. The challenge for us is deciding which vision we carry forward.