Was Jesus Woke ? Is Woke Jesus False Messiah Destroying Christianity Today

Want Proof That Jesus Was A Woke Socialist? Look No Further Than These Classic Quotes Straight From The Bible. Today's Thought - Was Jesus Woke ? Many Jews and Muslims have a deep respect for Jesus as a prophet and rabbi. Most Christians believe Him to be God in human form. So, it seems safe to say that a lot of people pay attention to what Jesus had to say about things.

Show more

The question I pose here is not an idle wondering, it is a serious concern. Why? Because too many Christians seem to be opposed to wokeness - true wokeness, not some weird aberration of the meaning. Like so many words that have been turned into weapons and insults, being woke does not have to be a negative or scary thing. I consider myself to be woke; that is, I am aware of injustice in the world and believe that we have the power, with God's blessing, to do something about it.

Who hates the idea of being woke? People in power - people with advantage and control - people who have something to lose if injustice is fixed. Jesus didn't oppress women and children, He freed them. Who did Jesus criticize and rebuke? Men with power. Men who tried to enforce archaic rules that gave them more and others less. The woman dragged before Him for being caught in the act of adultery was not innocent, but Jesus saw the inherent inequality in the crowd's actions.

Jesus didn't forbid divorce because He wanted men to be in control; in fact, men could discard their wives for younger models too easily, and their children would suffer as well. Banning divorce gave women and children more stability.

Who didn't Jesus rebuke? LGBTQ people - women - children - foreigners (okay, the "Feeding children to the dogs" episode is sketchy). Jesus was murdered by the empire precisely because He was working towards justice and challenging inequality. He wanted people to behave themselves and follow the commandments, but He also changed commandments that He thought were unjust. If being woke means we see injustice and want to change it, then Jesus was woke.

Not in foolish ways that too many people define it as, but in real, necessary ways that saved lives. It that is what it means to be woke, then Jesus was woke, and we need to wake up too. Justice is waiting. Prayer - Wake us up, God of the oppressed, so that we can change our lives and the lives of others. Amen.

Is Jesus “Woke”?
Texas Lieutenant Governor candidate Matthew Dowd suggests Jesus would affirm LGBTQ “rights” and other liberal causes – a far cry from the Jesus in the Bible.

Would Jesus be declared “woke” by political conservatives if he came to earth today, instead of 2,000 years ago? According to a recent tweet, the Democratic lieutenant governor hopeful of Texas, Matthew Dowd, believes so. Is Dowd right? Is Jesus “woke”?

Well, “woke” means many things today. In his tweet, Dowd appears to define it with the following statement:

How about we just say it is human decency to treat all with respect and dignity and that it is constitutional to say all men and women are equal.
Now, in his tweet he’s basically defending being “woke” as thinking like Jesus thinks and treating everyone with “respect and dignity.” Of course, that’s not how most people are using the term “woke.” Generally, it refers to being “awakened” to the so-called “issues of our day,” such as presumed LGBTQ rights, abortion, CRT, and so on. Dowd’s tweet is an example of the common practice of those who don’t really know or believe Christ and the Bible, using the Bible or Christ to affirm whatever they want!

When we look to God’s Word, we see that Jesus taught against many of the teachings of his day, particularly the false, self-serving doctrines and practices of the religious elites of his day. Often he did this by teaching from the Scriptures and showing them their error and sin. And he would do the same today—indeed he is doing so each and every day through his eternal, unchanging Word!

So, we don’t have to wonder if Jesus is “woke.” Jesus, who is God, gave us his Word, filled with everything he wants us to know about who he is, who we are, what he has done for us, and what he expects of us. And much of what he taught is upside down to what our sinful hearts expect or want—and that certainly includes today’s “woke” crowd.

Jesus taught:

Love your enemies (Matthew 5:44). This flies in the face of “cancel culture.”
Forgive as Christ has forgiven you (Colossians 3:13). “Anti-racism” and “wokeness” don’t even have a category for forgiving others! It’s an endless cycle of victims being victims and oppressors, real or imagined, doing penance for their, or their culture’s, “sin.”
Love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:31). The “woke” crowd tends to love this one, but they never define “love” according to God’s Word! When we do, we see that God defines love as self-sacrifice for the good of another (e.g., 1 Corinthians 13).
He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and no man comes to the Father except by him (John 14:6). In other words—there isn’t “my truth” and “your truth”; there’s only Truth.
Sexual immorality is a serious offense against God, whether that’s lust, adultery, homosexual behavior, etc. (Exodus 20:14, Matthew 5:28, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Hebrews 13:4).
Marriage is for one man (male) and one woman (female) (Matthew 19:4–5).
Lay down your life for others (Luke 9:24, 1 John 3:16). Abortion says the opposite—you will die for me.
And so much more!
So, no, Jesus wasn’t “woke” by any definition of the term. And, frankly, it’s irrelevant today—Jesus was accused of being demon-possessed (Mark 3:22) and more on earth because people didn’t want to believe he is who he said he was: God the I AM, the Creator, the Judge, and the Savior.

Really, Dowd and the “woke” crowd need to judge what they believe against the absolute authority of the Word of God! That’s the only way we can know the Truth that sets us free.

Jesus Wasn’t Woke – But He Did Wake Up a Desperate World. Matthew Dowd, one-time ABC News analyst and former advisor to President George W. Bush, ignited a firestorm on Sunday with a provocative Tweet:

“As I sat in church today I was thinking that if Jesus were here today he would be accused of being woke,” he wrote. “How about we just say it is human decency to treat all with respect and dignity and that it is constitutional to say all men and women are equal.”

In mainstream vernacular, the term “woke” has taken on a life of its own, generally used these days to describe a far-left perspective. In a political context, it was once intended to communicate being “aware” of racial injustice.

No longer.

It’s now being used as an all-encompassing term to describe radical activism – everything from the distorted understanding of gender to support of abortion and open borders. If you’re not “woke” you run the risk of being “cancelled” – a modern-day manifestation of intolerance – especially for people who hold to the historic teachings of the Christian faith.

It might be something of a new phenomenon to call Jesus “woke,” but it’s an old and tired habit of leftists (especially those who identify as Christian progressives) to call Jesus a liberal.

To back up this claim, they cite Jesus’ care and concern for the poor, the weak and the infirmed. They sum up His three-year ministry as a bold challenge to the status quo – confronting the powerful leaders of the culture and championing the underdog. Many who make this claim measure “compassion” by how many government dollars are thrown at an issue, even if it exacerbates the problem.

Of course, Jesus did express great concern for the poor – but He also did a whole lot more. Trying to narrowly define God’s Son on only a short list of issues distorts and diminishes the totality of His mission and ministry.

But this one thing is sure: Jesus was no “liberal” by modern definition.

All throughout the Old and New Testaments, sixty-six books which point to and revolve around Jesus, we read of conservative principles. These include support for the value of every human life, the sinful nature of each person, the proper channeling of God’s gift of sex, the need for personal responsibility, the value of churches and families and the appropriate role of government.

Those were just a few of the issues Jesus came to address. But in doing so, He didn’t just politically reform a broken world – He transformed it by going to the cross and dying for the sins of a desperate and dying people.

He died for me – and He died for you.

So, by every understanding of the word, Jesus wasn’t “woke.” But He did wake up a slumbering and sinful world. So effective was His life and ministry, in fact, that over two thousand years later the world continues to debate His words and actions – and billions call Him Savior and Lord.

Woke Jesus ? The False Messiah Destroying Christianity “In this bold, analytical, and readable book, Miles names names and dismantles the fallacy of progressive Christianity.”

Today’s social justice movements call for equality, civil rights, love . . . solid Christian values, right? What if there is more to social justice than Christians understand? Even worse: What if we have been duped into preaching ideas that actually oppose the Kingdom of God?

Woke Jesus uncovers the real dangers to Christianity and America from the Christian Left, Progressive or Woke Christianity. These radical alternatives abandon traditional biblical interpretations regarding marriage, gender, racial equality, justice, original sin, heaven and hell, and salvation, replacing them within a new fabricated morality. This fabrication is built around political correctness, cancel culture, hedonistic values, obsession with public health, allegiance to the leftist state, universalism, and virtue signaling.

Author Lucas Miles— a pastor and trusted voice in the American church who has consistently addressed some of the most challenging topics in religion—not only outlines how the radical left wing is co-opting Jesus for their own anti-religious views, but also provides a call to action for Christians to resist the siren song of social justice and Wokeism. Rather than ignoring the problems within the church, Miles shows Christians how to grow in the truth of God’s word by expanding their understanding of solid orthodox theology.

WWWJD: What Would “Woke” Jesus Do I have never been a fan of the WWJD (“What Would Jesus Do”) phrase. It sets up the idea of Jesus as merely an exemplary human from the past that we are supposed to copycat, as opposed to someone we can be in dynamic relationship with in following today.

In addition, the Biblical accounts of Jesus show him as a first century middle eastern man reacting to a very specific set of situations in a very specific culture that we cannot easily translate to our modern western world. While certainly the integrity of his character would remain the same, beyond that it becomes a guessing game of how exactly Jesus would react to every modern situation. The result is that we often manipulate him to be the kind of Jesus we want him to be and to justify our preconceived notions.

There is in the West, after all, on one far end of the spectrum a “social Jesus,” that stands as proof that the central point of Christianity is that we are to do good works by demolishing all power structures and setting up a future utopia with a completely equitable society. On the other far end is “American National Jesus” whose teachings led to the foundations of building the greatest nation the earth has ever seen. Followers of American National Jesus, of course, feel that we have departed from those beginning principles and that our central priority right now is to fight against all those “woke” social Jesus people in order to live out the freedoms that Christ truly intended.

In all my years of both studying and getting to know Jesus, of course, I have found that he is not always as predictable as we would like him to be, and that he is not so easily boxed in. In truth, that is one of the things that so much attracts me to him.

And that is why when my wife suggested the title “WWWJD: What Would ‘Woke’ Jesus Do” for a recent article I wrote for Baptist News Global, the idea of it really intrigued me. Baptist News didn’t end up going with that title, but I wanted to include the article here for my Honestly Thinking readers because, while Jesus can’t be boxed, I think there are certain things about Jesus’s character that remain true for all situations and that should challenge both ends of the spectrum in terms of the gospel we share and how we truly love our neighbor.

In a Facebook post I also followed up the article with the following words:

To be fair, I know many conservative Christians that are doing the good work – that are out there truly loving their neighbors.

I work for a ministry organization that dedicates itself to compassionately caring for the poor and the needy and alleviating suffering throughout the world (by helping provide food, water, shelter, and other needs). It also fights for justice – such as helping to rescue people out of human trafficking. Most of the employees are conservative Christians that passionately care about what we do, and the outreaches are primarily funded by conservative Christians who sacrificially give because they desire to make a positive difference in people’s lives.

I regularly meet conservative Christians who head up various types of ministries dedicated to making a difference: helping to alleviate struggles and poverty in inner cities, making changes to the foster care system, helping to heal abuse survivors, leading conversations to heal the racial divide, meeting the needs of pregnant teens and young women, advocating for more compassionate approaches to marginalized groups, and yes even some working to protect our environment.

I’ve also met many missionaries, who hold conservative views, who have given up everything “comfortable” in their lives in order to live amongst and serve the poorest of the poor.

(Now I also know many compassionate liberal Christians as well, but I’m addressing here those who identify as conservative)

The problem I have is with much of the current messaging. So caught up in our nation’s current political divide, much of the messaging (particularly on social media but in other places such as school board meetings, etc.), much of conservative Christian messaging has shifted from pro love and pro people, to basically “anti” everything – with a huge part of that being “anti-wokism.”

Part of that is due to the fact that many of those quietly doing the actual good work are not the same as the obnoxious loud ones putting themselves out there as “spokespeople.”

At the same time, I’ve seen others who have previously done good work so caught up in politics and fear of perceived “marxism,” etc. that they’ve shifted their whole focus to fighting ANYTHING the “Left” is concerned about – even if it’s things we as Christians should normally care about.

Thus, if anyone wants to talk about racial justice – even if it’s simply acknowledging our racist past or slavery – they immediately try to shut it down as “WOKE!” Talk about better ways to steward our resources and environment? WOKE. How to give people experiencing homelessness more dignity? WOKE. How to help women advance their dreams? WOKE. How to prevent sexual harassment and abuse? WOKE. How to have add diversity and multiple points of view? WOKE. How do we make LGBTQ+ folks know they are loved by God rather than hated? WOKE. How can we help refugees? WOKE.

As I stated in the article, this does not mean we have to accept every proposal offered to resolve these issues. There are certainly ones that can be more damaging than helpful. I’m a huge believer in religious freedom, and I agree that cancel culture has often gone too far.

But if every time these topics even get brought up for discussion, the immediate response is to shut it down with claims of “WOKE” and making “social justice” a derogatory phrase, it is absolutely no wonder that the rest of the world perceives us as unloving or even hateful to our neighbor. It also makes us guilty of our own form of cancel culture.

In conservative Christianity’s desire to fight all things “Woke,” I’ve actually seen compromises of theology itself. We’ve created a new “gospel.”

I read a recent Christian article that tried to argue that the gospel does not include loving your neighbor. In another one a while back, the author argued that Jesus’s meaning for neighbor was only literally your next door neighbor so could not apply to refugees.

One author, in an article from a decade ago, argued essentially the same thing I did in my article – that instead of criticizing those we disagree with, we should join them in “social justice” efforts (and, yes, he used those words) and demonstrate Christ’s love through the ways that we do it. But that very same author nowadays eviscerates anyone who even mentions “social justice” in a positive sense.

A 3rd reason for “anti-wokism” messaging these days is because there’s been reasonable challenges to some harmful teachings and behaviors that the church has maintained for years. But rather than self-reflect and examining the ways we might need to change (which is supposed to be a regular part of sanctification), many have buckled down and absolutely refused to even humbly listen to the cries of those who have been hurt.

I interact with many who have left the church (even though many still love Jesus) and this is cited as one of the number one reasons they have left. I’ve seen that stated hundreds of times by now. Yet, those who refuse to listen or consider changing often simply dismiss the ones who have left as becoming too “woke.”

Yes, there are many doing good work, but overall the church has still got to do better than this. It has to wake up.

“Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you” (Ephesians 5:14)

A conservative case for why the church should lead the way in being ‘woke’ i(Nina Strehl / Unsplash)
I’ve always been perplexed by my fellow conservative Christians’ overall rejection of “wokeness.” After all, the gospel is all about repentance from our harmful behaviors and a renewing of the mind. Who amongst us that has walked with the Lord for any length of time has not had the experience of God telling us to change longtime behaviors we had not previously recognized as sinful? That’s what sanctification is all about.

Yes, we all received forgiveness for our past upon turning to Christ, but we all still have a long way to go in terms of being “perfected.” I have been a Christian for more than 34 years, and I’m still discovering (sometimes daily) new things about myself that fall far short from the likeness of Christ’s character.

Thus, when we are called not only to examine our past but also to continually look at the ways our behaviors and systems in the present might be causing harm to others, shouldn’t we not only welcome but encourage it?

In calling the church of Ephesus to live a life of repentance, Paul specifically advised, “This is why it is said: ‘Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you’” (Ephesian 5:14). Is that not a call to be “woke?”

In addition, with verses like, “Do justice and righteousness, and save one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor” (Jeremiah 22:3) and, “He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows his love for the stranger by giving him food and clothing” (Deuteronomy 10:18), is not the Bible full of verses calling for justice and concern for the poor, the marginalized and oppressed?

And is not God’s command for us to subdue the earth a charge to properly steward our environment?

Of course, this does not mean all forms of implementing “justice” or care are necessarily good or helpful. Most of us recognize, for example, that simply handing cash to a person experiencing homelessness is not always the best solution. In fact, it often can be more hurtful, therefore making it the more unloving thing to do.

Likewise, the call for Christians to be “woke” does not mean all proposals for implementing social justice are impervious to criticism. Certainly, many man-made solutions, especially ones based on immediate emotional satisfaction over wisdom, or that rely on impersonal government programs versus loving care, have proved to be less effective and, in many cases, done more harm than good.

Furthermore, while accountability is an important part of creating a just society, we have seen many examples, whether on college campuses or through social media, of so-called “cancel culture” that have gone too far by stifling free speech and disproportionately destroying people’s lives and careers. In many ways, those fighting on behalf of the oppressed have become oppressors themselves.

But none of that excuses us from needing to care for the poor and the needy. None of that excuses us from administering justice on behalf of those who have been marginalized. And none of that excuses us from properly stewarding the earth.

In fact, it is the very wholesale rejection of “social justice” and anything they deem “woke” that gives the appearance that Christians lack compassion for those who are struggling, have little desire to self-reflect and change (thus, dismissing the process of sanctification), and are hypocritical to their own sacred text.

And just as the church once abandoned Hollywood to its own devices, now the church has abandoned its role of justice and care for the world to an increasingly secularized society, consequently, losing its influence. The result is a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy as it leaves the role of social justice into the hands of those who lack important Christian principles essential to its ultimate success.

So rather than rejecting “wokeness” and social justice efforts outright, shouldn’t Christians be joining others in it and bringing their own solutions to the table?

And by “solutions,” I don’t mean ones devised by a particular political party but rather ones that reflect the actual character and teachings of Christ — something much needed to make a difference in our divided world and in individual people’s lives.

In my opinion, Christians could and should be setting the narrative and leading on the front lines of social justice by carrying with it the following important principles:

Self-repentance. All too often, when we hear national calls for “repentance” or for “hope and change,” if you listen carefully, you will notice what people are really calling for is for those on the “other side” to repent. If the Left would just turn to God, repent of its idolatry and stop destroying America or the Right would stop its hate, and turn from its religious bigotry we would have a better country. But such calls for repentance ignore a critical teaching of Christ:

“Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and look, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye!” (Matthew 7:3-5)

If we wish for justice in our society, we must start by looking at ourselves. If we aren’t finding significant things to change in ourselves first — our actions, words and attitudes — we are not prepared to even begin asking others to make changes in their lives.

A Call to Holiness. In Scripture, God commands us, “Be holy, because I am holy” (Levitucus 11:44, 1 Peter 1:16), but most calls for change in today’s society look instead toward an idealized time and place, whether that be some future man made “utopian” society, a glamorized comparison to some other country, or a fondness to return to the way things once were. Due to the depravity of humankind, however, no particular people group, time period or country is ever free from problems or injustice.

Calls to “Make America Great Again,” for example, while certainly placating the fond memories of a better time for major segments of the population, forget that for other segments such as minorities, those were times of extreme injustice. Claims we should do things like such and such country often ignore that nation’s other problems hiding beneath the surface. And government programs designed to make things more equitable often become corrupted by those put in charge who are only looking out for their own self-interest.

Thus holiness, as reflected in the character of Christ and the fruits of the Holy Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control) should always be the end game for any social justice effort.

Grace. Instead of “cancel culture,” social media shaming, violent college protests and the likes, pointing out justice issues and offenses always should be done with a measure of grace. “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you,” according to Jesus (Matthew 7:2).

This does not mean there should be no measure of accountability, but rather such judgments should be issued without condemnation and with a sober level of self-awareness. Jesus illustrated this perfectly in his interaction with the woman caught in adultery. After making those who wanted to stone her self-aware of their own sinfulness and reassuring the woman that she was not condemned, he still proceeded to tell her to “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:11)

We also must remember that grace (meaning unconditional favor) must be administered to all parties involved, including and especially victims of injustice. As exemplified by recent sexual abuse scandals that have rocked the church, leaders in an attempt to administer “grace” to perpetrators of the crimes often offered little to no favor to their victims and did not consider their needs. The result is that the abusers were not held accountable, and survivors of their crimes left without a voice.

Too many lives have been condemned and nearly destroyed because of a lack of grace. True justice must include a combination of God’s unconditional favor and accountability.

Wisdom. That we may need to administer justice and concern for others may be obvious, but the best means to do so are not always clear. As in the example earlier of giving cash to a person experiencing homelessness, the emotional satisfaction of meeting that person’s immediate ask may not be the best solution. At the same time, there may be times where God specifically calls you to do so. Life is complicated, and we do not have all the answers on our own.

Jesus sometimes turned over tables and sometimes offered compassionate words. He sometimes spit, sometimes just touched, and sometimes he just spoke to bring about healing. This is because he relied upon God for wisdom in each individual situation. Unfortunately, humankind since the beginning has tried to do things on its own, choosing to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil rather than listen to God’s voice.

Fortunately, as Christians we still have access to that voice. We are told that “the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10) and that God gives wisdom “generously and without reproach” to those who ask (James 1:5). Too often the complicated world of social justice gets caught up in man-made solutions as well as party politics (from both sides) — solutions that may appear “right” on the surface but ultimately fail to bring life to the individuals in need.

By engaging in social justice and turning to God daily for guidance, Christians have the opportunity to bring wisdom to the table and truly change lives.

Humility. If there is any way I could best describe the constant division in our society over social justice issues, it is an extreme lack of humility from both sides of our political divide — Christians, unfortunately, have been no exception. But this is contrary to the very character of Christ, who having the very nature of God humbled himself for our sake (Philippians 2:6-8), encouraged us to serve “the least of these” (Matthew 25:40) and took on a servant’s role of washing his disciple’s feet (John 13).

Practicing all four above principles above should result in humility as we measure our own weaknesses before a holy God and dole out the same level of grace God has offered us. This also means less time “slamming” others on social media and in other spaces in order to have the upper hand, more time humbly listening and dialoguing with differing views, and continually going before God for help and wisdom.

This, of course, should be followed by a willingness to change as you learn from others and God brings your inadequate attitudes and behaviors to the forefront.

Moving forward, this gives each of us in the church a good set of questions to ask ourselves when facing a justice or care issue — before either outright criticizing an approach or jumping on its bandwagon:

In what ways do I need to repent on the issue first? If you have not found something in yourself that needs to change first, then you likely have not done enough self-reflection.
Is there holiness in the approach as well as in my response? “Holiness” can be a fairly broad term, but I have found simply asking this question gives me deep pause and holds me to accountability.
Am I offering grace to all individuals involved? If I am quick to condemn a side or to ignore the pleas of victims, then I am not showing the unconditional favor to others that God has already bestowed on myself.
Am I seeking God’s wisdom daily on this? Have I prayed on it first? A good indicator you are not doing this is if your approach never changes. Life is too complex to be doing it all according to your own plans.
Am I showing humility by actively listening to differing perspectives? If your goal is always to come out on top, then you may be advancing your own kingdom rather than God’s. A good indicator that you are not properly answering this question, or any of the above, is if you never find yourself changing along the way.
By practicing the above, the church can lead the way. It can help start a revival of “wokeness” as it awakens from its own slumber and begins to demonstrate what it truly looks like for Christ to “shine on you.”

When did ‘woke’ become a four-letter word? The Texas Legislature is currently considering bills forbidding the teaching in public schools of Critical Race Theory or the notion that America’s founding on slavery and taking land from indigenous people might in any way complicate the greatness of our nation. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick applauded the bills that have been passed by House and Senate, saying, “Texans reject Critical Race Theory and other so-called ‘woke’ philosophies.”

It’s a pretty consistent message about the wrongness of wokeness.

Patrick is one of an unending stream of mostly white, mostly wealthy public figures employing the word “woke” lately in press conferences and in the media. Legislators in numerous other red states are considering very similar public education measures banning the teaching of America’s racist and sexist past, while many national politicians have taken to the airwaves to promote the talking point that “woke corporations” like Coca-Cola, Dell, and Major League Baseball (who have objected to the national wave of legislation restricting voting and making it harder for working-class people and people of color) need to be reminded that Republicans drink flavored water too.

Seeing Patrick, or Sen. Marco Rubio, or Sen. Josh Hawley or Sen. Ted Cruz use the words “woke” or “woke mobs” has a certain entertainment value, certainly. Like imagining Sen. Mitt Romney trying to free-style rap. But it makes me wonder: Why is it that whether in the schools, in corporate life or in public discourse, a whole bunch of conservative people want us to stay asleep — or to turn over and go back to sleep?

A few years ago, another Establishment white guy, David Brooks, tried to explain the concept of wokeness in the Times. He did so in a way that starts to show why “wokeness” might be alarming to people at the top: “To be woke is to be radically aware and justifiably paranoid. It is to be cognizant of the rot pervading the power structures.”

To be woke, then, is not about being cool or trendy or indulgent or socialist or whatever it is that these mostly white, totally uncool politicians mean to imply when they repeatedly use the term in interviews and on social media. (David French says these conservatives are using “woke” as a synonym for “wrong”; I suspect they are also simply doing some old-fashioned racist dog whistling, since both “woke” and “mobs” are connected in the minds of many whites with scary Black people.)

Let’s push back on these negative uses of “woke” and lean into that of Brooks: To be woke is to be alert, aware and, quite possibly, informed in ways you previously were not.

In my book on race and culture, A Long Long Way, I quoted my friend Vann Newkirk II, who is someone who can credibly use the word “woke.” We were doing a program onstage at Washington National Cathedral, and Vann was talking about Martin Luther King Jr.’s final Sunday sermon, delivered from the imposing Canterbury Pulpit just to our left:

It was in one way a standard theological examination. He begins with Scripture from the book of Revelation. But then he goes to talking about the story of Rip Van Winkle, a fellow who fell asleep for 20 years and woke up — he fell asleep during the time the United States was controlled by the crown, and woke up in a post-revolutionary era. King used that example sort of as a parable to warn people about how to remain awake during a great revolution. What he talked about was how to stay woke, as lots of people say. But also how to, if you were in the process of waking up, how to have your racial awakening, and how to get to the point where you could critically engage with life, with race, with becoming an anti-racist.

What does it mean to have your racial awakening? Over the past year, I’ve had conversations with numerous white people who saw the George Floyd video, or who witnessed during the pandemic how many of our front-line workers were people of color, or who recognized that this pandemic and recession have affected people very differently based on the color of their skin. Out of this awakening has come a recognition that people who have opened their eyes have a responsibility to do something about what they’ve seen — to critically engage with life, to use Vann’s phrase.

But it does not suit people in power to have the rot in our power structures even questioned, let alone overturned. “Go back to sleep,” is the call they are making to people, groups or corporations who speak up about social injustice. “Don’t wake up” is the call being delivered to our school children, and the suggestion to white people with privilege who can be frightened with the threat of losing it.

Widespread wokeness also doesn’t suit people who don’t want the glorious past questioned, because if the past wasn’t stuffed full of liberty and justice for all, then maybe the present isn’t so glorious either.

On May 14, the Texas House passed a bill mandating that exhibits at the Alamo focus on the heroic siege and on the Texas Declaration of Independence. Texas legislators got red in the face about the idea that students and visitors might be told that Texas heroes like William Barret Travis were slaveholders, or learn the inconvenient fact that the Texas war for independence — like the Civil War, later — centered on slavery, that as Andrew R. Graybill writes in Texas Monthly, “the states’ right the Texans most relentlessly asserted was the power to own slaves.”

But hey, go back to sleep.

There’s nothing to see here.

I’ve been teaching the works of people of color — and of women writers and filmmakers — for more than 30 years at Baylor University. Part of that pedagogy always has been about my desire to learn and teach about the entire human experience, not just the one that looks like mine. But the other part, the most important part, has been my awakening to the awareness that often we are told only a part of the story, and that my students and I need more if we’re going to live with integrity and act with justice. Only by hearing the whole story can we wake up.

Could you win a quiz show by defining ‘Critical Race Theory’? Imagine you’re on a television game show vying for a $50,000 grand prize. All you have to do to win the money is give a proper definition of one term: Critical Race Theory. Could you do it?

If your answer is “no,” you’re not alone. It’s likely the vast majority of American adults could not give a simple definition — or any definition at all — for this relatively new term that has become a flashpoint of controversy in our national conversation about race and racism.

Yet despite this common lack of knowledge, the term “Critical Race Theory,” or “CRT” for short, has become a favorite descriptor for what some religious and political conservatives see as cultural sensitivity run amok.

Earlier this year, Donald Trump famously banned Critical Race Theory from being used to teach about diversity awareness in government agencies and by government contractors. In the first presidential debate this fall, he explained that his action was necessary because training employees about inherent biases in the workplace is itself “racist” and “un-American” and part of a “radical revolution” fueled by “very sick ideas.”

Then on Nov. 30, the presidents of the six Southern Baptist Convention seminaries jumped into the fray, using the occasion of celebrating the 20th anniversary of the SBC’s revised doctrinal statement to denounce Critical Race Theory as “incompatible” with the Baptist Faith & Message (2000 edition).

That declaration set off a firestorm of protest — especially from Black pastors and congregants, some of whom are threatening to drop affiliation with the SBC over it.

“The seminary presidents’ position has put (African American) pastors on the defense. We constantly have to answer the question: Why do you remain in the SBC?” Black Texas pastor Dwight McKissic tweeted Dec. 26. “I’m yet to hear reasons for opposing CRT by the presidents that are clear, convincing and necessary. They succumbed to SBC racial culture.”

What is CRT?
Critical Race Theory is an academic concept that seeks to identify the roots of racism that have influenced society and continue to bear fruit today. It’s not a religion or a doctrine but rather is a construct for evaluating ourselves and our society. Thus, it has been used as a tool to help uncover forms of systemic racism that often are overlooked by the majority population.

For a more formal lay reader definition, turn to Wikipedia, which describes CRT as “a theoretical framework in the social sciences that examines society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law and power in the United States of America.”

Critics often claim this construct assigns blanket guilt to white people and is intolerant in its repudiation of intolerance. Some critics deny the reality of “systemic racism” in American society.

This movement began in law schools in the 1980s and was an outgrowth of academic theory related to race, postmodernism, queer theory, gender studies, inequality and post-colonialism. “Critical theory” as a broad category sees social problems as influenced by societal structures and cultural assumptions more than by individual and psychological factors. Thus the use of the term “systemic racism” to indicate that racism has been baked into American culture from the beginning and is not just a matter of an individual or group having racist thoughts or taking racist actions.

CRT posits that white supremacy is a real thing that has allowed white Americans — whether consciously or not — to maintain power over time. It places particular application on the law.

For example, systemic racism asks why Black men are incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their percentage of the U.S. population or why profound economic and educational gaps persist between Black citizens and white citizens. In the current moment, it asks why Black and brown people are disproportionately dying from COVID-19 compared to white people.

CRT is now taught in a number of U.S. law schools and is represented in university curricula in the fields of education, political science, women’s studies, ethnic studies, communication, sociology, and American studies.

Critics accuse CRT of being the product of liberal intolerance for traditional ideas, for being rooted in postmodernism, moral relativism and Marxism.

That last point about Marxism appears to be a driving factor for the SBC seminary presidents. Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina, told Religion News Service CRT is rooted in Marxism. RNS reported: “Since Marxist theories are atheistic, Akin said, Southern Baptists must reject its underlying framework for understanding the world.”

What about Marxism?
Critical Race Theory is only the latest in a long line of issues and ideas that have been dismissed by cultural conservatives as “Marxism.” Historically, some conservative traditionalists have drawn a line from Marxism to feminism, multiculturalism, civil rights, LGBTQ rights, Black Lives Matter and other progressive social issues. At its worst, these accusations carry an antisemitic tone, blaming a small group of Jewish academics as the source of such liberalism.

Jacob Woolf, a Jewish student and political activist at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, published an article on Medium last year noting the use of “Marxism” as an all-purpose label for things modern conservatives disdain globally.

“There is a spectre haunting conservatism, the spectre of Marxism,” he wrote. “It permeates across the forums and blogospheres of conservatives and libertarians, endlessly invoked and casually tossed out in barbed allegations. … A newfound interest in Marxism seems has infected not just a gaggle of ordinary conservatives but many of their leading and most influential figureheads.”

Writing in the Guardian newspaper in 2015, columnist Jason Wilson concurred. Appealing to “cultural Marxism,” he wrote, “allows those smarting from a loss of privilege to be offered the shroud of victimhood, by pointing to a shadowy, omnipresent, quasi-foreign elite who are attempting to destroy all that is good in the world. It offers an explanation for the decline of families, small towns, patriarchal authority, and unchallenged white power: a vast, century-long left-wing conspiracy.”

“Cultural Marxism” even has its own entry on Wikipedia, where it is described as a “far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory.”

In the United States, a related charge is to label progressive political ideas as “socialism.” That was on full display this summer at the Republican National Convention, where Trump campaign adviser Kimberly Guilfoyle warned, “Biden, Harris and their socialist comrades will fundamentally change this nation.”

Two years ago, the Heritage Foundation published an article by Lee Edwards warning of the danger of Millennials embracing socialism via Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. “Socialism is no longer a parlor game for academics but a political alternative taken seriously by Millennials who are not put off by the radical … platform,” he wrote.

And this summer, Eleanor Krasne of the Heritage Foundation published a lengthy article on its site claiming a very simple definition of Critical Race Theory as “a theoretical framework, rooted in Marxism, that posits individuals as oppressed or oppressor based on their skin color.”

Is CRT rooted in Marxism? One of the most extensive treatments of this question was published this summer on the Christianity Today website, via “The Exchange,” a blog forum curated by Ed Stetzer, who holds the Billy Graham Distinguished Chair of Church, Mission and Evangelism at Wheaton College and serves as executive director of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton.

Stetzer earned both a master’s degree and a doctorate at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and previously worked there at the invitation of President Albert Mohler.

Stetzer noted that since his Twitter feed “is filled with people calling one another Marxists, I thought it might be good to hear from a scholar who knows a bit more about it.” That scholar is Kelly Hamren, assistant professor of English at Liberty University. Her doctoral dissertation focused on 20th-century Russian poetry, with an emphasis on Marxist-Leninist ideology in the Soviet Union.

At Stetzer’s invitation, Hamren wrote a first-person post titled “Social Justice, Critical Race Theory, Marxism, and Biblical Ethics.”

“In my field, Marxism is one of the most commonly studied and most influential perspectives, and Critical Race Theory is also a significant force and gaining momentum,” she wrote. “As a result, I’ve studied these theories extensively.”

To be clear, she is no fan of Marxism: “My studies have convinced me that the sufferings and deaths of millions are not only correlated with but largely caused by the Marxist-Leninist agenda, and I am therefore deeply opposed to Marxism as a framework.”

Hamren sees Critical Race Theory as “deeply informed by Marxism” and therefore admits she “will not agree with all of its tenets.” However, she added, “Marx was not wrong about absolutely everything. Very few thinkers are (probably because they are all made in God’s image) wrong about everything.”

She identifies two statements from Marx’s teaching that she finds resonate with Christian ideals: (1) Power does exist, and people do sometimes use it to oppress others; and (2) Oppressed people do suffer, and their suffering is often unjust.

“Reading the Old Testament will make these truths abundantly clear,” she suggested. “Because I believe people are made in God’s image (Genesis 1); the God whom I worship warned his followers repeatedly not to oppress the poor, widows, foreigners, …; and Jesus reached out to those whom society despised … , I can argue with confidence that my faith is wholly consistent with working to mitigate oppression in the society in which I live. By doing so, I am not embracing an alternate gospel but merely living in a way consistent with the gospel I have embraced since I was a child.”

Even though some Christians have criticized an emphasis on “social justice” as only a tenant of liberalism, Hamren said that’s not necessarily so. “What some are referring to as ‘social justice’ these days — making sure our laws and institutions don’t make it easier for the powerful to oppress marginalized groups — often refers to good, old-fashioned biblical justice.”

She added: “If the term ‘social justice’ is sometimes co-opted by Marxists, rejecting the concept outright robs Christians of the chance to become part of the conversation regarding its definition and application. It is a fluid concept right now, and using the term in a way that validates biblical principles of justice can help shape the way in which the cultural conversation develops.”

Further, Hamren does not see an inherent conflict between conservative biblical theology and the problem of systemic racism.

“If people are born in sin and people build a society, that society will be structured in ways that reinforce whatever sins dominate the hearts of those who build it,” she reasoned. “Therefore, even if many people’s hearts change a few generations later, those structures might still perpetuate the problems associated with that society’s ‘original sins.’”

This is why, she added, “it is possible to recognize that many individual police officers might not be racist and still believe that changes in police departments need to take place to discourage injustice.”

To affirm such a possibility from a biblical understanding of original sin differs from Marxim, Hamren asserted.

“Marxism posits that socio-economic forces create the problem, not that they perpetuate the problem. A true Marxist does not believe that individuals have essential selves apart from the historical contexts in which they develop.”

Christians who believe that sins, such as racism, originate in the human heart should see the need for an even deeper solution than Marxism proposes, she added. “The fact that we will never be able to eradicate sin (this side of the resurrection) does not mean we should sit back and allow it free reign.”

What’s the conflict with the Baptist Faith & Message?
The six SBC seminary presidents have not offered a detailed critique of Critical Race Theory, only a general assertion that it is incompatible with the Baptist Faith & Message.

However, in June 2019, messengers to the SBC annual meeting adopted a resolution “On Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality” that stopped short of a blanket condemnation. It acknowledged: “Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality alone are insufficient to diagnose and redress the root causes of the social ills that they identify, which result from sin, yet these analytical tools can aid in evaluating a variety of human experiences.”

The resolution — known now as Resolution 9 — affirmed Scripture as “the first, last and sufficient authority with regard to how the church seeks to redress social ills” and rejected “any conduct, creeds and religious opinions which contradict Scripture.” It also declared that Critical Race Theory “should only be employed as analytical tools subordinate to Scripture — not as transcendent ideological frameworks.”

Thus critics of the presidents’ statement who live within the SBC have expressed perplexity that the seminary leaders have taken a stance more restrictive than the convention itself.

For some far-right groups within the SBC — a description that might appear perplexing to those outside the denomination — the 2019 resolution did not go far enough. And alarms have been sounded about Critical Race Theory infiltrating SBC schools and agencies.

Tom Ascol, leader of a group of SBC Calvinists known as Founders Ministries, is among those who critiqued the SBC resolution.

“Any Christian leader who understands (Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality) and refuses to reject them is not a trustworthy guide in the battle that is currently raging within the church and culture,” he wrote on the organization’s website. “Anyone who promotes any of these ideologies is either too naive to be a leader or has become complicit with the enemy against Christ. There is no neutral ground.”

A search of the Founders Ministries website produces 31 articles published there about Critical Race Theory.

Another group, the Conservative Baptist Network, has made opposition to Critical Race Theory one of five key objectives listed on the home page of its website.

It declares: “The Network strongly believes in a just society for all based on biblical truth, opposing racism and sexism in all forms, and therefore rejects worldly ideologies infiltrating the Southern Baptist Convention, including Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, and other unbiblical agendas deceptively labeled as ‘Social Justice.’”

Three days after the seminary presidents announced their stand against Critical Race Theory, the Conservative Baptist Network applauded the move: “We look forward expectantly to the presidents’ cooperation with us in rescinding Resolution 9 and to their taking concrete actions toward the elimination of these unbiblical doctrines and others like them, such as Black Liberation Theology, from our SBC seminaries.”

The Network likewise had applauded Trump’s executive order banning racial bias training.

“Critical Race Theory is an insidious ideology with its roots in neo-Marxism,” the group said in a statement posted to its website. “It purports to expose and correct ‘unconscious racial bias’ and ‘white privilege,’ and in doing so, treats ‘whiteness’ as a moral blight. It identifies ‘oppressor’ racial groups and treats anyone as a member of that group as guilty by association, while members of victim groups are considered morally innocent by virtue of their skin color.”

It concluded: “The battle against Critical Race Theory is a proxy for the larger battle between those who would define America on the lie that the color of one’s skin is immutably linked to one’s worth, and those who know the truth: that America was founded on a fierce belief (in) dignity and the equality of all — and those beliefs have made America the greatest barrier to racism and tyranny that the world has ever known.”

Ironically, one of the principles of Critical Race Theory is that for too long white people have set the agenda and controlled the conversation about race, while persons of color have been silenced. All six seminary presidents are white males, as are the leaders of Founders Ministries. The Conservative Baptist Network lists a 56-member steering council that includes two Black males and five women, one of whom is Black.

Want to understand Critical Race Theory? Read the Good Samaritan story. Critical Race Theory grew out of the work of legal scholars of color who recognized how racism was structured in law, although now it is used across a wide variety of academic disciplines and activist work. CRT recognizes that racism, rather than being individual attitudes, is a system that produces and is produced by social institutions (like the church, education, medicine, media and law) and symbolic messages (like language and images).

CRT attempts to make these systems visible in order to dismantle them and build more inclusive, equitable and just structures.

It’s about story telling
A primary method of CRT is counter-storytelling. CRT tells stories that challenge dominant stories, norms and assumptions. Counter-stories highlight the experiences of marginalized and vulnerable people whose narratives expose problems with dominant narratives. Counter-stories are especially useful in exposing discourses that seem race-neutral but in reality rest on racist assumptions.

For example, the dominant narrative of science is one of objectivity, empiricism and merit. But listen to the stories of BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) in science, and you’ll hear another story. One Pew Research Center study found that more than 60% of Black STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) workers had experienced some sort of racial bias at work. Another report found that 77% percent of Black women in science feel they have to prove themselves over and over again.

In that same study, Latinas reported experiencing backlash for being assertive on the job. During her graduate program in plant biology, Regina felt she had to prove herself again and again, especially as the only Black student in her cohort. In fact, one white faculty member tried to have her terminated from the program. Messages were sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle, but always clear — “Are you really good enough?”

These counter-stories expose the fallacies of the dominant narrative and help us see how the dominant narrative obscures experiences of diverse people.

Learning from Jesus
Jesus used a similar technique in his teaching. In fact, we see a good example of CRT at work in the story of the Good Samaritan.

The context for that story in Luke is a challenge to Jesus by a lawyer. The lawyer asks what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus asks him what is written in the law, and the lawyer replies, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus tells the lawyer that he has given the right answer. He has stated the law, and now all he has to do is live by it.

But that’s not enough for the lawyer. He wants to justify himself, and so he asks, “Who is my neighbor?”

The prevailing narrative in Jesus’ time was that a neighbor was someone who was a member of the covenant community and who shared a reciprocal relationship to support and promote welfare. A Samaritan did not fit this bill. In fact, Samaritans were considered “ethnically and religiously suspect.” While Samaritans saw themselves as true Israelites, Jews saw them as a result of a mixture of Assyrians and Israelites, especially a religious mixture. The lawyer would not have expected a Samaritan to be the protagonist of a story.

So Jesus rocks his world by telling a counter-story that challenges the lawyer’s ethno-religious bias and asks him to think and act differently.

Mikhail Bakhtin suggests that often outsiders in a story may have a fuller perception of what’s happening than insiders because their “outsidedness” puts them in a better position to see what’s really going on. Throughout the Gospel of Luke, outsiders often understand Jesus better, including the Samaritan woman at the well.

In the story of the Good Samaritan, we again see an outsider who better understands the law than the lawyer. So the story puts the lawyer — and Jesus’ listeners (and modern day readers) — on the spot. It disrupts our worldview of who our neighbor is, and it demands we act, not like the priest and Levite insiders, but like the Samaritan outsider.

Racial identity as motivator
Reading this narrative as a counter-story within the context of Critical Race Theory raises a number of possibilities for modern readers.

At the core of this story is ethno-religious identity. We see a similar dynamic in white evangelical Christianity in the age of Trump. What purports to be a religious identity is really a racial identity that shapes religion, which is why we often see behaviors so at odds with the teachings of Jesus.

As in the story of the Good Samaritan, the insiders are those who by their embrace of ethnic and religious identity purport to know and keep the law, and yet we see that in centering these dominant identities they actually violate the spirit of the law they profess to keep. As the story shows us, it’s one thing to know the law and another to do it. Or to paraphrase Bebe Moore Campbell, “Your Christianity ain’t like mine.”

In June 2015, Dylan Roof, a 21-year-old white supremacist, studied and prayed with parishioners at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C. While in the 17th and 18th centuries in this country whites shared the gospel with free and enslaved Black people, churches remained sites of segregation and discrimination. In the early 19th century, many free Black people left these congregations to create their own denominations and churches, free of white control and discrimination. Emanuel AME, “Mother Emanuel,” was one of the first of these churches and so an apt target for Roof’s bigotry and rage.

After the Bible study, Roof opened fire and killed nine members of the church.

In the aftermath, rather than crying out for retaliation, the congregation prayed for Roof, even as they buried their dead. They offered him words of forgiveness. Some predominantly white Christian denominations issued statements condemning the shooting and racial hatred; others, including the Southern Baptist Convention, remained largely silent. Some conservative news organizations turned the shooting into a religious issue, completely ignoring the central racial dynamic.

Following the shooting, many South Carolinians gained a new awareness of the continuing existence of racism, and renewed calls for the Confederate flag at the South Carolina statehouse finally to come down prevailed at last. Yet in both 2016 and 2020, 55% of South Carolina voters, mostly white, cast their ballots for Trump, a man with a long record of violating every Christian norm, even as Black South Carolinians by far voted for Clinton and Biden.

Who is in the ditch?
We might easily read this story with Dylan Roof as the attacker who leaves someone in a ditch by the side of the road. But what if we read it with Roof in the ditch, wounded by legacies of white supremacy, with Black members of Mother Emanuel as those who show him compassion?

Where does that leave other white people? Like Roof in the ditch and in need of compassion and healing from racism? Or like the priest and Levite who walk on by, too invested in their own racial and religious purity to help? Or the lawyer, trying to justify themselves?

Read this way, the story doesn’t leave room for “good” white people who think they aren’t complicit within the system of racism. Rather, the story read this way makes abundantly clear the inconvenient truth that white people do not escape accountability for racism simply because they announce their good intentions toward people of color.

What it means to be human
Another truth of the story is the role Black people play in the liberation of white people from the sin of racism. The Samaritan saw helping the injured man as part of his responsibility as a citizen of this world, as a human being. He didn’t need to be thanked; he didn’t need to be repaid. He needed to be able to look himself in the mirror and know that he had done the right thing. He knew what it was to be dismissed, discriminated against, stepped over. And so he, like many people of color, gave to someone who could be his enemy, because he understood love for his fellow human to be for all people, not just those who look like him.

This also seems to be the plight of people of color in this country, especially Black people. The racial liberation of white people rests on the work of people of color. This work takes many forms, such as leading marches to protest racial violence; devoting one’s academic scholarship to explaining what race and racism are; giving guidance on how to be anti-racist; and organizing community conversations with white neighbors.

White people have their own work to do, but it always happens in relationship with the work of people of color to dismantle racism.

Get uncomfortable
If these stories and readings leave you uncomfortable, that’s the point of both Jesus’ parables and CRT. They expose the ambiguities, create disruptions and demand that we face truths better seen by outsiders. They bring subordinated perspectives to the surface so we have to confront systemic, institutional and personal failings, and then they call on us to act.

Only by hearing counter-stories can the white church confront its racist past and its continuing participation in the maintenance of white supremacy.

The white church needs to hear the outsider lest it become self-congratulatory for renouncing racism in its proclamations while embodying white supremacy in its practices. The white church must realize it is in that ditch with Dylan Roof in need of redemption and healing.

The counter-stories of CRT offer a powerful and disconcerting way for the white church to begin its journey toward racial repentance, atonement and reconciliation.

AOC Said Jesus Is A Woman - So What Is A Real Woman Question - Matt Walsh - https://rumble.com/v4jcaab-aoc-said-jesus-is-a-woman-so-what-is-a-real-woman-question-matt-walsh.html

So In A Secret Meeting By Antifa And Black Live Matter And With 1,000 Other Democratic Party Members... Said Jesus Is A Trans Woman So What Is A True Woman Is The Question. According to various sources, Jesus was not a woman, but rather a man who took on the form of a woman through his mother, Mary.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/1611-King-James-Bible-Introduction.php

One of the most asked questions of the century. How can the Messiah’s Name be Jesus if the letter “J” did not exist 500 years ago?

King James 1566-1625 The Black King Who Had The Bible Translated Into English - https://rumble.com/v29ufns-king-james-1566-1625-the-black-king-who-had-the-bible-translated-into-engli.html

It wasn’t until then, after the 1611 Bible was published, that the English language officially accepted the shape and sound of the letter “J” as “jay” and no longer the “yuh” “Y” sound. Jehovah or Jesus are Man made Names, with Man Made Doctrines.

Show less