In the year 2124, in the land of Novarion, Gibbon Edwards may write about the fall of a great nation, indeed, an empire. Not an empire of conquered nations but an empire of a transformative ideal, the American Ideal. She will write about how that once great nation collapsed from within after America was defeated by America: 

In the year 2024, after centuries of unparalleled prosperity, innovation, and democratic triumph, the great American Empire—a once proud beacon of freedom, progress, and noble ideals—faced an ignoble and inevitable demise. As the final echoes of its collapse reverberated throughout history, it became clear that its fall could be traced back to one singular cause: the rise of a peculiar faction of Christian zealots who inexplicably and with unwavering devotion pledged their allegiance to the most profane of figures— a vain, self-absorbed fool. 

Much like the Roman Empire of old, the American Empire’s strength was derived from its virtues of democracy, intellectual pursuit, and the rule of law. For centuries, its citizens—blessed by a legacy of Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment values—strove to form a more perfect union, championing the freedom of thought, worship, and the pursuit of truth. But regrettably, as the empire grew, so too did the power of factions—none more powerful or perplexing than the Evangelical Christians who, in the final days, placed their unwavering faith in a leader whose moral compass was as dubious as the emperor Nero’s and as erratic as Caligula’s.

To understand how this happened, one must first examine the state of Christianity in late America. Christianity had once been a noble force, preaching kindness, forgiveness, and love of neighbor—principles so vital to the republic’s soul. However, a great corruption had slowly crept in. In the spirit of Roman emperors who sought to use religion to bolster their power, a new breed of Christian emerged—one whose interpretation of the faith focused less on humility and charity and more on power, wealth, and the unfathomable belief that a vacuous reality TV star could be the chosen one to lead America. 

It was under this new post-Christian Christianity that the empire began its decline. As the faithful rallied behind the “great leader”—a man whose business acumen was as questionable as his grammar—the foundations of American democracy were steadily eroded. They turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the words of the Hebrew prophets, the Apostle Paul, and the Savior himself. They chose to believe lies, lies that were not hidden by deception but lies on full display before their very eyes. Yet, they stubbornly refused to see what was brazenly done and said in the open. The Senate and the House, once a body of reasoned discourse, were reduced to a circus of sycophants, more interested in pandering to their Dear Leader than in defending the integrity of the nation. 

But the true tragedy lay in the Church’s complicity. Much like the early Christians who defied the Roman Empire’s authority and were later co-opted by it, so too did the American evangelical movement begin as a force for good but was soon ensnared by the temptations of power. The Church, in its desperate desire for political influence, sold its soul to a leader who promised them influence in exchange for their loyalty. They turned a blind eye to his moral failures—his lies, his mockery of the weak, his disregard for the poor—and in doing so, they abandoned the very teachings of Christ.

The once-thriving intellectual class of the empire—akin to the philosophers and orators of ancient Rome—found themselves mocked, dismissed, and ignored. The pursuit of knowledge was drowned in a sea of half-truths and social media rhetoric. Universities, the free press, and basic standards of decency and honesty faced relentless attacks. Most Americans, with an average reading level of 7th grade and a declining habit of reading books, fell into functional illiteracy. Propaganda posing as news replaced reliable information, while social media echo chambers amplified fears and stifled critical thinking. This environment fostered ignorance, promoting the illusion that facts were irrelevant and reality could be reshaped by sheer will. The result was a society untethered from truth, where Orwellian distortions thrived, and wisdom and knowledge were increasingly forsaken.

It was not long before the consequences of this folly became apparent. Much like Rome before it, the Republic was mired in civil war as factions within the Christian community—some still clinging to the ideals of truth, love, and the Gospel, others enthralled by the power of the golden calf—fought for control of the empire. The military, once a noble force tasked with protecting the nation, was increasingly employed as a tool of political violence. And just as Rome fell to the Visigoths, so too did America begin to crumble under the weight of its internal contradictions, as the rise of authoritarianism and division paved the way for chaos.

Yet, the true irony of this tragic tale lies in the fact that the Christians who supported this destroyer did not see themselves as the agents of destruction. They believed that by elevating a man whose values were so diametrically opposed to Christ’s teachings, they were somehow fulfilling the will of the Almighty. They saw in him a warrior for their faith when in reality, he was a mirror of their own corruption—a reflection of a people who had abandoned their principles in exchange for power, just as Rome had done centuries before.

And so, as the American Empire crumbled into the dust of history, the Christians who had once been its moral compass became the very instruments of its destruction. With the nation’s final collapse, there was no emperor to blame, no corrupt senator to decry, and no barbarian horde to fear. The fall was entirely self-inflicted, the work of a people who had traded their faith and democratic ideals for a false messiah.

Thus, the great American Empire, like Rome before it, met its end—not by the enemy’s sword but by the folly of its own citizens, who, in their blind pursuit of power, brought about their own downfall. And in the annals of history, the tale of America’s demise would be remembered as a cautionary fable: a tale of an empire that crumbled not under the weight of its enemies but under the misguided loyalty of its people.

Μὴ γένοιτο. May it never be. 

Jacques Ellul’s work Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (1965) and George Orwell’s 1984 (1949) both analyze how propaganda can shape perceptions, enforce conformity, and direct public behavior through the media. While Ellul studies the mechanics of propaganda in modern democracies, Orwell imagines a dystopian world where propaganda has reached its ultimate oppressive form. By examining Fox News through the perspectives of Ellul and Orwell, one can observe how it operates as a sophisticated machine for spreading selective narratives and reinforcing specific ideologies, creating an “us versus them” mentality similar to Orwell’s fictional world of 1984.

Ellul’s Concept of Propaganda and Orwell’s “Big Brother”

Ellul defines propaganda as a continuous, systemic effort to influence public perception and behavior through the careful integration of selective messaging. Propaganda operates best when it feels natural and becomes embedded in everyday life so that people unconsciously absorb certain ideologies as truth. Fox News fulfills this role by presenting itself as a reliable news source while constantly promoting specific perspectives and values. This mirrors Orwell’s idea of “Big Brother,” the ever-present government figure who dictates what is true or false and monitors society to ensure compliance with the state’s ideology. Although Fox News is not an authoritarian state, its pervasive influence and repetition of certain ideas have created a media environment that Orwell would recognize as a breeding ground for controlling thought.

Orwell’s 1984 illustrates how propaganda can construct an alternate reality where history and facts are manipulated to maintain social control. The concept of “Newspeak” in 1984, a language designed to limit thought and expression, demonstrates Orwell’s idea that language can be a powerful tool for controlling minds. In a similar way, Fox News often simplifies complex issues into short slogans and buzzwords—like “fake news,” “cancel culture,” and “patriotism”—which strip issues of complexity and create an emotional response rather than an informed analysis. This process echoes Ellul’s notion of “integration propaganda,” which aims to shape a collective identity by embedding certain values into society, guiding individuals to see themselves as part of a unified group defending against a common enemy.

Pre-Propaganda and the Shaping of Reality

Ellul introduces the concept of “pre-propaganda,” the subtle priming of audiences to accept certain ideas and frameworks before explicit messages are delivered. Fox News, like other powerful media outlets, operates on this principle by consistently promoting a worldview that emphasizes certain values, such as distrust of government, skepticism toward mainstream media, and hostility toward those perceived as “others.” Over time, these values become the baseline for interpreting information, priming audiences to accept ideologically driven news as factual. Orwell’s 1984 presents a similar concept in the Ministry of Truth, which rewrites history and shapes reality to ensure loyalty to the state.

Orwell’s “Two Minutes Hate,” a daily broadcast that channels public anger against the government’s enemies, is another parallel to how Fox News operates. By constantly framing groups like immigrants, liberals, or activists as dangerous or untrustworthy, Fox News creates an “us versus them” mentality, which encourages its viewers to see themselves as defenders of American values against various perceived threats. This mechanism of inciting fear and anger toward a common enemy aligns with Ellul’s concept of “agitation propaganda,” which motivates individuals by playing on strong emotions and providing them with a sense of purpose.

Emotional Manipulation: A Page from 1984

Ellul asserts that effective propaganda works by appealing to emotions, bypassing rational thought to create visceral reactions that are hard to counter with logic. Fox News frequently uses emotionally charged language, especially during primetime segments hosted by figures like Sean Hannity, Jesse Waters, and Laura Ingraham. These hosts use sensationalist and dramatic language to incite anger, fear, and outrage in their viewers, often over issues like immigration, crime, or threats to traditional values. This emotional manipulation resembles the “Two Minutes Hate” in 1984, where citizens are rallied to express rage toward the state’s enemies.

Orwell’s Party uses hatred to create loyalty to Big Brother and a fear of rebellion; similarly, Fox News harnesses fear to increase viewer loyalty by framing certain issues and people as existential threats to the American way of life. Ellul warns that propaganda’s appeal to strong emotions, like anger and fear, is highly effective because it creates an attachment to the propagandist’s agenda that is difficult to break. This emotional connection is self-reinforcing, causing audiences to feel as though any information challenging their views is not just incorrect but also threatening.

Cultivating Group Identity and Loyalty

Ellul describes propaganda as a means of creating a collective identity that allows individuals to feel a sense of belonging. Fox News builds this identity by frequently using inclusive language like “we” and “us,” encouraging viewers to see themselves as part of a larger group defending American values. By framing itself as the only trustworthy source, Fox News reinforces loyalty among viewers, who may feel that the network is uniquely “on their side.” This dynamic is reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984, where the Party encourages citizens to be suspicious of all information except what is state-approved.

In 1984, the concept of “doublethink” teaches citizens to accept contradictory truths if they come from the Party, preventing any resistance to the Party’s message. Fox News has a similar effect, where it encourages viewers to see mainstream media as biased or deceitful, fostering a media echo chamber. Even when Fox News reports controversial or factually questionable information, its loyal audience is conditioned to accept these messages without question, often dismissing contradictory sources as untrustworthy or fake.

The Language of Simplification and Misinformation

Both Orwell and Ellul recognize the importance of simplified language and controlled narratives in shaping public opinion. In 1984, “Newspeak” limits the range of thought by eliminating complex ideas from the language. Similarly, Fox News uses simplified slogans and catchphrases to reduce complex social and political issues into binary terms. For instance, terms like “war on Christmas,” “cancel culture,” and “patriotism” become rallying cries that eliminate nuances, creating emotional responses rather than informed debates. Ellul argues that such simplification is essential to propaganda because it allows people to take sides without needing to analyze or understand complex information.

Moreover, Fox News has been criticized for spreading misinformation, especially on issues like climate change, election integrity, and COVID-19. Orwell’s 1984 presents a world where the truth is whatever the Party declares it to be, even if it contradicts reality. Similarly, Fox News has crafted a version of reality for its viewers that is often disconnected from empirical evidence. According to Ellul, propaganda’s goal is not to inform but to embed a particular perspective so deeply that it becomes the audience’s accepted reality. This reliance on repetition and familiarity creates a stable “alternative truth” that often stands impervious to external verification, much like the Party’s insistence that “2+2=5.”

The Cycle of Propaganda and Orwellian Thought Control

Ellul warns that propaganda operates within a self-sustaining cycle, where individuals seek out information that reinforces their beliefs, deepening their dependence on a single source. Fox News benefits from this echo chamber effect, where its viewers continually return to the network as their primary source of information, viewing other media outlets as suspect or untrustworthy. This closed-loop system creates a sense of loyalty and insulates viewers from alternative perspectives, a phenomenon akin to Orwell’s 1984, where citizens are conditioned to view any dissenting views as dangerous.

The proliferation of Fox News across television, online, and social media platforms enables this cycle to persist, embedding its narratives into the daily lives of its audience. By mirroring Orwell’s warnings about thought control and media monopolization, Fox News illustrates how propaganda can create a reality that both Ellul and Orwell would recognize as dangerously limiting for a democratic society.

Conclusion

Through the combined lens of Jacques Ellul’s analysis of propaganda and Orwell’s dystopian vision in 1984, Fox News emerges as a propaganda machine that shapes public attitudes, reinforces specific ideologies, and promotes misinformation. By embedding certain values, simplifying complex issues, and creating an emotionally charged sense of identity, Fox News ensures that its viewers adopt a unified worldview aligned with the network’s agenda. This model not only amplifies Fox News’ influence but also inhibits critical engagement with alternative perspectives. As Ellul and Orwell warn, this type of propaganda—be it in reality or fiction—is both socially transformative and profoundly restrictive, limiting the potential for an informed, democratic society.

My theory is very simple: Follow the money. The government, businesses, and all Americans benefit from the exploitation of undocumented immigrants. Here is what I mean:

The issue of undocumented immigration in the United States presents a complex ethical challenge, one that reflects broader themes of economic exploitation, systemic injustice, and society’s responsibility to the vulnerable. The U.S. economy has come to depend significantly on undocumented immigrants, who contribute to essential industries and pay taxes without receiving proportional benefits. This system raises questions of justice and human dignity, especially when evaluated through biblical teaching. The biblical witness reveals the moral imperative to resist systems that exploit the vulnerable and to build communities rooted in compassion, justice, and care for all people, especially the marginalized.

Undocumented immigrants are embedded in key sectors of the American economy, including agriculture, construction, food service, and domestic work. In many cases, these industries would face significant disruption without the labor of undocumented workers, who often perform physically demanding and low-paid jobs that many American citizens avoid. The agricultural sector, for example, relies heavily on undocumented labor to meet production demands. Beyond their labor contributions, undocumented immigrants also pay billions of dollars in taxes each year—around $11.74 billion in state and local taxes, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Many contribute to Social Security and Medicare but are ineligible to receive these benefits, creating a one-sided economic exchange that bolsters these programs while denying benefits to those who fund them.

This arrangement, where undocumented immigrants provide labor and revenue without receiving reciprocal rights or protections, raises significant ethical concerns. This system is, at its core, a form of economic idolatry, for it stems from an economic structure that treats human beings as resources to be exploited for profit rather than as individuals with inherent dignity. The U.S. reliance on undocumented labor without granting these workers legal rights or protections reflects a structural sin—where economic priorities dehumanize and exploit a vulnerable population. While it is far easier to scapegoat undocumented immigrants, the problem is much closer to home. Our exploitation of the poor is the greater sin, for through it, we dehumanize those who are created in God’s Image, and we violate the biblical demands of justice and compassion.

The Bible consistently condemns the exploitation of the poor, highlighting that God’s justice extends to societal structures and economic practices. In the Old Testament, the prophets repeatedly denounce societies that exploit the vulnerable for personal or systemic gain. Amos, for example, warns of God’s judgment on those who “trample on the needy and bring the poor of the land to an end” (Amos 8:4). Isaiah also critiques leaders who enact “unjust laws” that deprive the poor of their rights (Isaiah 10:1-2), emphasizing that true worship of God requires justice and compassion for the vulnerable. The prophetic tradition underscores that societies are accountable to God for how they treat their poorest members, rejecting systems that benefit the powerful at the expense of the marginalized.

Consider this: The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is often remembered for the dramatic destruction of these cities as divine judgment for sexual immorality. Yet the Hebrew prophets repeatedly emphasize deeper issues—social injustice, neglect of the poor, pride, and the abuse of power.

The prophet Ezekiel explicitly addresses the sins of Sodom in Ezekiel 16:49-50: “This was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.” Here, Ezekiel emphasizes pride, abundance without gratitude, and a lack of concern for the marginalized. Sodom is portrayed not merely as a place of personal immorality but as a society that has failed its most vulnerable members, focusing on self-interest and wealth over compassion and justice.

In the book of Isaiah, the prophet draws parallels between the sins of Israel and those of Sodom, particularly focusing on social injustice. In Isaiah 1:10-17, God, through Isaiah, rebukes the leaders of Israel by comparing them to the rulers of Sodom, condemning their empty religious practices that ignore justice and the plight of the oppressed. Isaiah’s message is that worship means little if it is not accompanied by a commitment to justice, compassion, and righteousness—values ignored by Sodom and Gomorrah.

The prophet Jeremiah also addresses the sins of Sodom, linking them to Israel’s moral and spiritual decay. In Jeremiah 23:14, he criticizes the prophets of Jerusalem, saying they “commit adultery and live a lie” and that they “are like Sodom” in their corruption. Here, Jeremiah connects the sins of Sodom to idolatry and moral degradation, showing how these sins can lead a society into decay.

Though not directly mentioning Sodom, the prophet Amos echoes the Hebrew Bible’s focus on social justice and righteousness, particularly regarding treatment of the poor. Amos warns that God’s judgment falls on societies that exploit the vulnerable and fail to uphold justice, showing a prophetic theme that reflects God’s concern with oppression, which mirrors the sins associated with Sodom.

The Hebrew prophets paint a broader picture of Sodom’s sins as deeply embedded in issues of pride, injustice, and a failure to care for those in need. Their condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah serves as a cautionary reminder: true righteousness, according to the prophets, is not merely personal morality but a commitment to justice, mercy, and care for the marginalized. For these ancient prophets, divine judgment is a call to cultivate societies that reflect compassion and fairness—ideals that Sodom failed to uphold.

Walter Brueggemann’s The Prophetic Imagination adds another layer of insight, emphasizing the role of “prophetic imagination” in challenging systems of oppression. Brueggemann critiques the values of “empire”—societies that prioritize power, control, and economic growth over compassion and justice. The U.S. treatment of undocumented immigrants mirrors the logic of empire, where economic gain justifies the exploitation of the marginalized. Brueggemann calls Christians to envision alternatives rooted in God’s Kingdom, where justice and care for the vulnerable replace the priorities of empire. For him, true faith requires a commitment to societal structures that reflect God’s concern for justice, not systems that exploit the poor for profit.

In the New Testament, Jesus intensifies the biblical condemnation of exploitation, especially in relation to wealth and power. His mission statement in the Gospel of Luke—“to proclaim good news to the poor…to set the oppressed free” (Luke 4:18)—reveals a deep concern for the marginalized and oppressed. Jesus’ teachings challenge societal norms, warning of the spiritual dangers of wealth and greed. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warns that “you cannot serve both God and money” (Matthew 6:24). This teaching points to the potential of wealth to lead to idolatry, where economic gain becomes more important than compassion and justice. Jesus’ words challenge believers to resist systems and practices that exploit the poor for financial gain.

1 Timothy 6:10 warns us that it is this love of money that is the root of all sorts of evil, including the evil of exploiting the poor and the powerless who have come to seek shelter and succor from us. The Apostle James also condemns the exploitation of laborers, warning that “the wages you failed to pay…are crying out against you” (James 5:1-6). James’ teaching reinforces the biblical message that God hears the cries of the oppressed and holds exploiters accountable.

The biblical message is clear: exploitation of the poor is a violation of divine justice. The U.S. treatment of undocumented immigrants, while economically advantageous, reveals a moral corruption that poisons the moral fabric of our nation. I am far more concerned with the condition of our hearts than with the politics of the issue.

As the church, we face a choice: We can be political partisans or prophetic witnesses—but we cannot be both. I don’t claim to have the answers to the complex issues surrounding undocumented immigrants. But I believe a better starting point is not mass deportations but rather the eradication of our own complicity in the economic exploitation of the poorest and most vulnerable among us. I pray, “Let justice roll down like water and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream (Amos 5:24) and let the church be the church.

Throughout history, religious and nationalistic ideologies have frequently been employed to justify violence and oppression. This trend is evident in the Doctrine of Manifest Destiny, German Nationalism during the Nazi era, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), Jim Crow segregation, and American Christian Nationalism. In each case, religious language and beliefs were used to legitimize exclusion, dominance, and violence, often reinforcing power structures and advancing a sense of divine or racial superiority.

Manifest Destiny: Violence Justified by Divine Mandate

The Doctrine of Manifest Destiny was a 19th-century belief that the United States was destined by God to expand westward across North America. This ideology, rooted in a blend of Christian theology and American exceptionalism, provided moral justification for the violent displacement, subjugation, and extermination of Indigenous peoples and other non-European inhabitants. The westward expansion often resulted in military campaigns, forced relocations (such as the Trail of Tears), and the destruction of Native American cultures, all under the belief that expansion was God’s will for the nation.

The violence associated with Manifest Destiny was framed as a necessary and righteous act to bring “civilization” to the continent. By intertwining patriotism with religion, American leaders and settlers could view acts of conquest and oppression as fulfilling a divine mission, creating a narrative that obscured the moral consequences of their actions. This perceived divine mandate not only promoted territorial expansion but also fostered a racial hierarchy that justified the suppression of non-white populations. “Adolf Hitler drew inspiration from American Indian policy” (Ned Blackhawk, The Rediscovery of America, p. 414).

German Nationalism: Nazi Ideology and Theological Distortions

German Nationalism during the rise of the Nazi regime merged nationalistic fervor with a corrupted form of Christianity to promote racial purity and anti-Semitic violence. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis portrayed the German people as a superior Aryan race with a divine destiny to lead and purify the nation. This racial ideology was often reinforced by distorted theological teachings that depicted Jews as enemies of the state and Christianity itself.

Books like “The Aryan Jesus” and “Theologians Under Hitler” illustrate how German evangelical Christians and theologians aligned with Nazi ideology, promoting a version of Christianity that was stripped of its Jewish roots and aligned with the goals of National Socialism. This theological manipulation provided a religious framework for the Holocaust and other acts of state-sanctioned violence, depicting them as steps necessary to fulfill Germany’s destiny. The combination of nationalism, racial superiority, and religious distortion fueled one of history’s most devastating genocides.

The KKK: White Supremacy Cloaked in Religious Language

The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) has historically used violence and terror to maintain white supremacy in the United States, often cloaking its agenda in Christian rhetoric. Founded after the Civil War, the Klan positioned itself as a defender of Protestant and white American values, using religious symbols like the cross to signify its purpose. The group’s tactics included cross burnings, lynchings, and other acts of terror aimed at African Americans, Catholics, Jews, and immigrants.

The Klan’s connection to conservative Christianity provided a moral justification for its actions, portraying its violent acts as a defense of a divinely ordained social order. Many Klan members saw themselves as “crusaders” protecting a threatened Christian civilization, gaining support from segments of the church and society that endorsed or ignored its violence. This blend of white supremacy with religious language perpetuated systemic racism and helped sustain social structures built on racial exclusion and inequality.

Jim Crow and Segregation: Institutionalizing Racism with Religious Justification

Jim Crow laws, which enforced racial segregation and discrimination in the Southern United States from the late 19th century until the Civil Rights Movement, were also often justified with religious language. Proponents of segregation used biblical interpretations to argue that God had created distinct races and intended for them to remain separate. This ideology not only justified the legal and social oppression of Black Americans but also fueled violent enforcement of racial boundaries through acts of intimidation and brutality.

Churches, particularly in the South, were sometimes complicit in supporting segregationist policies, with sermons and religious teachings reinforcing the idea that segregation was divinely sanctioned. This religious endorsement of segregation helped maintain the racial hierarchy, ensuring that white supremacy was upheld through legal, social, and even theological means. The violence associated with Jim Crow was not just physical but also systemic, as it sought to deny Black Americans their basic rights and dignity through a supposedly Christian framework.

American Christian Nationalism: Modern-Day Violent Rhetoric and Actions

In recent years, American Christian Nationalism has emerged as a powerful force, blending conservative evangelical Christianity with a vision of the United States as a uniquely Christian nation. This movement often promotes the idea that America has a divine mission to uphold Christian values and that any threat to this mission—whether secularism, immigration, or progressive politics—must be resisted, sometimes through violent means.

The events of January 6th, 2021, during the attack on the U.S. Capitol, showcased the dangerous potential of American Christian Nationalism. Many of the rioters carried Christian symbols, including crosses and signs with biblical verses, and used religious rhetoric to frame their actions as part of a battle for America’s soul. The intertwining of militant language with religious imagery has contributed to a narrative where political and cultural conflicts are seen as spiritual warfare, justifying extremist actions.

American Christian Nationalism often portrays its struggle in terms of divine sanction, with some leaders framing political and cultural battles as existential threats to Christianity itself. This rhetoric echoes earlier instances of religiously justified violence, perpetuating a cycle where faith is used to sanction power struggles and social exclusion.

The history of Manifest Destiny, German Nationalism, the KKK, Jim Crow segregation, and American Christian Nationalism shows how religion can be manipulated to justify violence, oppression, and the maintenance of power. In each case, ideologies of divine or racial superiority were used to legitimize exclusionary practices and acts of terror, often reinforcing existing social hierarchies and fostering systemic injustice.

These movements also illustrate the profound responsibility of religious institutions to guard against the misuse of faith for violent or oppressive ends. While religion has the power to inspire justice, peace, and social transformation, it also has the potential to be co-opted to support harmful ideologies. Understanding this dual potential is crucial for ensuring that faith is a force for healing rather than a tool of violence and division.

God has made clear what is demanded of us, that we should do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8). May we His people live the more Christ-like way.

Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

—Proverbs 16:18

We can learn a lot about the theological nuances of the Bible by the choices of its early translators. Though Proverbs was originally composed in Hebrew, during the Hellenistic period, many Jews spoke Greek. According to tradition, seventy Jewish scholars were asked by Ptolemy the Great (285–46 BCE), the Greek Pharaoh of Egypt, to translate the Torah from Hebrew to Greek for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria. The remaining books of the Hebrew Bible were translated sometime in the second century BCE. This Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible is known as the Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, meaning “the seventy,” and is often abbreviated in Roman numerals LXX). Most Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are from the Septuagint.

The ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible can reveal nuances of meanings in the biblical texts, otherwise hidden to us, given our historical, linguistical, and cultural distance. So, let’s look at the Greek translations for the Hebrew vocabulary about “pride” in Proverbs. For instance, in Proverbs 16:18, the Septuagint translates “pride” as hubris. Hubris is a toxic combination of ambition, overconfidence, and arrogance; it’s a kind of overweening pride that causes one to overstep one’s rightful boundaries and invade the sphere of another with insolent force and the infliction of insult and injury.

The Hebrew Scriptures have two major word groups for hubris gāʾâ and zîd, which are often translated as “pride” (noun) or “proud” (adjective). The primary meaning of gāʾâ is “to rise” (e.g., Job 22:29), and it denotes loftiness, arrogance, and pride. This word is used in Ezek 16:49–50 to summarize the guilt of Sodom for its pride (gāʾâ), excess of food, prosperous ease, and neglect of the poor and needy. Ezekiel’s rebuke culminates in this stern declaration, “They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it” (Ezek 16:50). According to Ezekiel, Samaria and Jerusalem were equally guilty of the same behavior and now liable to the same judgement. Pride led Sodom, Samaria, and Jerusalem to their destruction.

The second Hebrew word for pride (zîd) is frequently used to refer to three specific aspects of pride. The first characteristic is presumption. A person inflated with pride presumes too much in his or her favor, especially the perceived sense of authority. For example, a false prophet presumed to speak in the name of God and assumed the authority to do so without actually having been designated and called by God (Deut 18:20). The second characteristic of pride is rebellion or disobedience. The proud person asserts his or her own will to the point of rebelling against authority (Deut 1:43; Neh 9:16, 29). The third attribute of pride is self-will. Self-will is when you obstinately do what you want in spite of the wishes or instructions of others. When the Bible warns about being stiff-necked, it is talking about self-will. Self-will is vividly portrayed in Isaiah’s taunt against the king of Babylon (Isa 14:3–27). Five times the king boasted, “I will.” He said, “I will ascend to heaven,” “I will set my throne on high,” “I will sit on the mount of the assembly,” “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,” and “I will make myself like the Most High” (Isa 14:13–14). God’s judgment fell on the king’s self-will:

“I will rise up against them,” declares the Lord of hosts, “and will cut off from Babylon name and remnant, descendants and posterity,” declares the Lord. “And I will make it a possession of the hedgehog, and pools of water, and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction,” declares the Lord of hosts.” (Isa 14:22–23)

Pride led the king of Babylon to his destruction.

King Uzziah displays another example of hubris (2 Chr 26:1–23). A dynamic and capable leader, King Uzziah conquered the Philistines and Arabians, subjugated the Ammonites, built great public works, organized and equipped the army, fortified Jerusalem, and was personally very successful. “His fame spread far, for he was marvelously helped, till he was strong” (2 Chr 26:15). Then his pride led to his downfall. Second Chronicles 26:16 tells us, “But when he was strong, he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was unfaithful to the LORD his God and entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense.” Entering the temple to burn incense was the job of the priests, not the king. The strength and greatness of Uzziah as king did not give him the right to overstep his boundaries as king and insolently invade the sphere of the priests (2 Chr 26:17–18). Uzziah’s hubris in this act of worship was counted as unfaithfulness to the Lord. He was struck with leprosy and remained leprous until the day he died (2 Chr 26:19–21). Pride led Uzziah to his destruction.

Proverbs speaks extensively about the dangers of hubris in leadership because prideful arrogance and overstepping the boundaries of one’s authority are easily justified with appeals to fruitfulness, calling, or leadership style. Fruitfulness does not give you permission to be abusive or unethical. Your calling does not authorize you to be arrogant or to make pronouncements on issues you are not qualified to speak on. Hubris is not a leadership style: It is a sin. It is to be rejected and renounced at every turn.

Adapted from my new book, Following Wisdom, Leading Wisely: Proverbs as Ancient Wisdom for Today’s Leader. Pick your copy today. Available on Amazon or wherever you get your books.