As the upcoming presidential elections approach, many are increasingly concerned about the rising influence of evangelicals in positions of power. Debating with them on philosophical, ethical, or moral grounds has proven futile, as their arguments invariably revert to a fundamental, literal reading of the Bible. However, we can now challenge this literal interpretation by demonstrating that the “God” of the Bible most likely evolved from the deification of a powerful king. What, then, remains of their moral compass?
The Evangelical Grip on Power
In recent years, evangelical leaders and their followers have gained significant political influence, shaping policies and swaying decisions through their strict adherence to biblical literalism. This trend has accelerated with Donald Trump in power. Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, is an advocate of Project 2025, and MAGA Republicans are doubling down on their extreme agenda, threatening IVF access and even putting contraception on the line. This unwavering stance leaves little room for dialogue or reinterpretation, as every argument is anchored in the perceived infallibility of the scriptures. However, the rigidity of this belief system may be its greatest weakness if the foundational narratives are shown to have evolved from more earthly origins.
Historical Roots of a Deified King
I spent the last twenty years of my life assembling evidence strongly suggesting that the God of the Bible evolved from the deification of a powerful king. Ancient texts, historical context and archaeological evidence indicate that early Israelites may have initially worshipped a revered leader whose legacy morphed into the divine figure we recognize today. This historical context challenges the evangelical claim of a divinely inspired, immutable deity, instead presenting a narrative shaped by human history and cultural evolution.
The Fragile Moral Compass
If the God evangelicals base their moral compass on is shown to have originated from a mortal king, it fundamentally undermines the divine authority they attribute to their moral and ethical guidelines. This revelation invites a critical re-examination of the moral directives derived from biblical literalism, suggesting they are not unchangeable truths handed down by a supreme being but evolving constructs influenced by historical and societal changes.
Recent Judicial Biases
The actions of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito illustrate the dangers of this rigid biblical literalism infiltrating the highest levels of power. Their positions on issues such as abortion, the January 6 insurrection, and gerrymandering reveal a clear bias influenced by evangelical beliefs. Their departure from impartiality to promote a specific religious agenda demonstrates how this fundamentalism can erode the integrity of the judicial system and threaten women’s rights.
Seeding Doubt
I demonstrate in my work that the infallibility of the Bible can be challenged with a secular literal interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant (by showing it was more likely made to secure a trade route between Egypt and Mesopotamia). This interpretation of the biblical text is more efficient and the plot clearer, which in turn enables us to challenge evangelicals on their own literal grounds. Comparing the efficiency of the two interpretations introduces doubt, which is clearly seen as a threat to evangelicals’ certainty in their “infallible interpretation.”
Conclusion
Time is of the essence. With the upcoming elections, it is crucial to challenge the evangelical grip on power by revealing the earthly origins of their foundational narratives. Challenging the “infallibility of the Bible” using a literal interpretation of their sacred text undermines their claims of divine moral authority. We must spread the word and engage in meaningful dialogue to counteract their influence. By doing so, we can pave the way for more inclusive and rational discussions about ethics and governance, ensuring that our political landscape is shaped by reason and shared human experience rather than rigid literalism. This is not just about winning a debate; it’s about protecting the rights and freedoms of all individuals, especially women, in our society.
