Findings

Introduction

This section presents the core results of the study, summarizing key observations from the
content analysis of biblical passages and discourse analysis of political speeches.

The findings illuminate how biblical language constructs and deconstructs cultural meaning
through the inclusive, exclusive, and metamorphic interpretive frames, and highlight patterns
of use across both sacred and political contexts.

Overview of Findings

My analysis revealed compelling patterns in both the sacred texts and political speeches,
drawing from a list of 100 terms as developed by David Domke and Kevin Coe (2008).

Biblically, the metamorphic frame emerged as the most prevalent across all five translations,
underscoring the transformative potential of biblical language in shaping cultural narratives.
In contrast, the exclusive frame was the least common, suggesting a general tendency in these
texts toward fostering inclusivity or transformation over exclusion.

Among translations, the King James Version (KJV) stood out for its high incidence of
metamorphic language, contrasting my thesis that The Passion Translation (TPT) would be
the most apparently transformative. Surprisingly, TPT actually recorded the most instances of
exclusive language, with a relatively narrow margin separating it from the other translations.

Conversely, the New International Version (NIV) exhibited the highest frequency of
inclusive language, reflecting its accessible and unifying tone. Additionally – and despite the
relative age eras of social construction – the American Standard (ASV) and King James
Versions (KJV), recorded the fewest instances of exclusive language, followed closely by the
remaining translations. This potentially conflicts with my assumption that older texts would
more readily serve as a fount for the exclusionary frame.

These findings highlight both the diversity and continuity of theological emphases across
translations.

Meanwhile, in the political speeches examined, Barack Obama demonstrated a far greater use
of religious language compared to Donald Trump, opposing conclusions that previous
literature on this subject has discovered (Hughes, 2019).

Obama’s addresses consistently leaned on the inclusive frame, emphasizing themes of unity,
hope, and collective progress. This approach reflects a modernist idealism that seeks to unify
audiences, even during politically or socially fragmented moments.

Conversely, Donald Trump employed significantly less religious language overall, yet his use
of the metamorphic frame dominated the other two by a wide margin. This might indicate
Trump’s rhetorical reliance on transformation, oscillation between inclusive and exclusive
frames to appeal to a broad and ideologically diverse audience.
His apparent strategy suggests a metamodern understanding of the socio-political moment,
constructing a narrative that both disrupts and reshapes conventional political rhetoric.

Together, my findings reveal nuanced differences in how sacred and political texts use
biblical language to influence cultural meaning. While Biblical texts demonstrate a greater
emphasis on transformation and inclusivity, political speeches tend to highlight the interplay
between rhetorical idealism and pragmatism in order to effetively navigate contemporary
social, political, and ideological dynamics.

Content Analysis Results

Here, I detail findings from my analysis of biblical language across the five translations
(KJV, ASV, NIV, MSG, TPT) and within each of the three prescriptive frames of
interpretation (inclusive, exclusive, and metamorphic).

The data provides a quantitative basis for understanding how each translation emphasizes
different theological and rhetorical priorities, as relative to their eras of conception. My
subsequent analysis revealed distinct trends in the prevalence of the three interpretive frames.

Patterns in Biblical Texts

1. Metamorphic Frame Dominance

In my study, the metamorphic frame was the most frequently employed, averaging
just under a 1% rate of incidence across translations. This trend reflects the Bible's
enduring emphasis on transformation, reimagining relationships in light of divine
purpose.

The KJV showed the highest frequency and percent occurrence of metamorphic
language, with 19 instances (0.97%), followed closely by MSG at 18 (.83%).

The NIV and ASV were level at 17 (though the NIV had a slightly higher rate of
occurrence, at 0.88% vs. 0.83% in the ASV), and finally TPT had 16 appearances of
the metamorphic (0.81%).

These findings highlight the near universal interpretive lens found in Scripture that
emphasizes personal and spiritual renewal over both division and unity.

2. Inclusive Frame Insights

The inclusive frame emerged as the second most prevalent in selected texts, at just
under ½ of a percent, implying there remains a considerable focus on themes of unity
and equality, despite the more significant emphasis on transformation.

The ASV led with 10 occurrences of inclusive language (0.50%), displaying an

accessible and community-focused approach to theology, despite a rigorous adherence
to remaining a more literal representation of the original texts. This was matched by
the KJV and NIV, both recording 9 instances, and having virtually identical rates of
incidence (0.46%). The TPT and MSG followed closely, with 8 instances each (0.41%
and 0.37%, respectively).
 These results suggest that inclusivity is a consistent theme in biblical literature, as its
expression seems to be evenly distributed across all five translations, especially when
compared with the exclusive frame.

3. Exclusive Frame Rarity

The exclusive frame was consistently the least employed interpretive framework
across all translations, manifesting at around ¼ of a percent rate of expression.

This suggests a limited focus on hierarchy or in-group/out-group distinction, generally

opposing both my hypothesis coming in, as well as the wider cultural narratives that
surround religious texts in contemporary society.

The KJV, ASV, and MSG translations all recorded the lowest frequency of exclusive
language, with 3 occurrences in both the KJV and ASV (0.15% in both), and 4
occurrences in the MSG (0.18%).

The NIV had only 5 instances, though this comprised a slightly elevated rate of
relevance when compared with total word count (0.26%). Finally, TPT notably
recorded the highest count of the exclusive, with 6 occurrences (0.31%). This may
reflect its broad rhetorical range, along with a greater balancing of each interpretive
structure, measuring exclusivity with both the metamorphic and inclusive frames.

Thematic Insights

1. The King James Version (KJV):

The KJV exhibited the highest frequency and percentage of metamorphic language,
with 19 instances (0.97%). This finding underscores its primary focus, as well as its
stylistic impetus. One explanation could be that during the period of The Reformation,
there were widening divisions which existed within the church, namely between
Catholics and Protestants. By reimagining associations in light of divinity, this
iteration of Scripture may have served to help alleviate interdenominational
differences via a renewed focus on God.

Additionally, the KJV displayed a balanced application of inclusivity, with 9

instances (0.46%), consistent with its historical role as a unifying text across cultures.
Its use of exclusive language was minimal, with only 3 instances (0.15%), further
supporting its emphasis on transformation over division.

2. The American Standard Version (ASV):

The ASV led in the inclusive frame, with 10 occurrences (0.50%), highlighting its
focus on themes of equality, an important social motif during the time of its inception,
with the 1900s according to most historians marking the dawn of the modern age.

Its use of the metamorphic frame was also robust (17 instances, 0.83%), reinforcing
its alignment with broader scriptural themes of transformation. By comparison, the
ASV recorded only 3 instances of the exclusive frame (0.15%), reflecting its
commitment to remaining a precise, yet inclusive interpretation of the original texts.
 3. The New International Version (NIV):
The NIV demonstrated a balanced rhetorical strategy, with a significant emphasis on
the inclusive frame (9 occurrences, 0.46%) and a marginally higher-than-average
percentage use of metamorphic language (17 instances, 0.88%). Despite this balance,
the NIV’s exclusive frame usage remained low, with 5 instances (0.26%).

These findings highlight its accessible and community-oriented focus, as designed to

appeal to diverse audiences while retaining transformative theological elements.

4. The Message Bible (MSG):

The MSG recorded 18 instances of metamorphic language (0.83%), second only to
the KJV, mirroring its conversational and transformative style aimed at postmodern
audiences. Its inclusive language count (8 instances, 0.37%) suggests an intentional
effort to resonate with modern readers while maintaining themes of unity.

The MSG’s low exclusive frame usage (4 instances, 0.18%) aligns with its
paraphrased approach to translation philosophy, emphasizing accessibility while
minimizing hierarchical undertones.

5. The Passion Translation (TPT):

The Passion Translation unsurprisingly displayed the broadest rhetorical range, with
statistically significant counts across all three frames. Its metamorphic language usage
(16 occurrences, 0.81%) was slightly lower than the other translations examined for
this study, yet it balanced this with 8 instances of inclusive language (0.41%) and the
highest frequency of exclusive language (6 occurrences, 0.31%).

This unique distribution suggests a deliberate effort to balance theological themes, by

incorporating both transformation, inclusivity, and exclusivity in ways that align with
its meta-modern interpretive style; fluctuating between modern and postmodern
concepts to achieve a more balanced synthesis, yielding metaphoric revelation of
distinct and innovative social archetypes (Kirby, 2006).

This quantitative analysis, coupled with my own reading and selection of the source texts,
reveals significant trends across the five translations, emphasizing the dominance of
transformative and inclusive language while minimizing the exclusive.

These findings underscore how biblical language might adapts to cultural contexts, helping
construct meaning, while simultaneously reflecting an inherent continuity and diversity of its
theological and rhetorical priorities.

Discourse Analysis Results

Moving beyond quantitative metrics, I included in my methodology a qualitative discourse

analysis. This added broader context to the research angle, as well as to the wider discussion
on rhetorical frameworks with respect to ideological construction.

The following section presents my findings from this discourse analysis, looking specifically
at six governmental speeches: three delivered by former president Barack Obama and three
by current president Donald Trump.
As was detailed in the methods chapter, these addresses were selected with respect to social
import, rhetorical diversity, and religious expression. My analysis examines the prevalence of
the three interpretive frames—inclusive, exclusive, and metamorphic—within the context of
political speech.

By comparing these two American leaders, I aim to offer insight as to how these two very
different figures both employ religious themes to craft their social and cultural messaging.

General Observations

To provide a baseline from which to draw, I thought it important ascertain the prevalence of
each religious frame using the same list of 100 words (Domke & Coe, 2008).

Across their speeches, Obama and Trump demonstrated strikingly different patterns in their
use of religious language. Obama’s words, totalling 9,512, revealed a heavy reliance on the
inclusive frame (103 instances), while the metamorphic and exclusive frames appeared 46
and 39 times, respectively. Ultimately this equals a rate of just under 20 words per thousand
(1.97%) for the general appearance of religious language in Obama’s political discourse.

In stark contrast, Trump’s speeches saw a drastic dip in both instances and rates of usage. Out
of 6,119 words, he tended to lean more on the metamorphic frame, though this totalled a
mere 17 appearances, with the inclusive and exclusive frames being used only 5 and 4
times, respectively. This equals less than ½ of a percent (.042%) across all frames.

These contrasting patterns might suggest significant differences in rhetorical strategy, though
they certainly highlight an inherent deficiency of purely quantitative methods when
attempting to establish meaning, given the complexity of linguistic meaning, and limitation of
numerical processing. This weakness is compounded by the narrow corpus of texts from
which I’m able to reasonably analyse in a master’s level dissertation, together with the
inevitable connotative losses that occur when reading a transcription, versus listening to a
recording of, or observing a speech directly.

Fortunately, modern technology allows me to render primeval experience, and so, for the
remainder of this discourse analysis – I will be drawing on more gut level insights gleaned
from a direct exploration of the speeches at hand.

Independent Frame Analysis

Barack Obama:

1. Inclusive Frame:
With 103 instances, the inclusive frame was the cornerstone of Obama’s rhetorical
approach, comprising 1.08% of his total word count. His speeches consistently
emphasized shared values, unity, and collective identity.

This heavy reliance on inclusivity is reflective of Obama’s broader political

philosophy, rooted in a shared responsibility “yes we can” which seeks to bridge
divides and inspire hope in a fractured society.
 While some pundits saw the arrival of Barack Obama as an indicator of a post racial
social order (citation), we now know better. The era of Obama led politics may have,
for lack of a better term, been more akin to a collective exorcism, than any sort of
utopia rooted in shared prosperity.

Despite this reality, Obama’s rhetoric never seemed to waver from this idealistic
worldview, as evidenced by a consistent use of the inclusive frame.

While he often made room for the messiness of American life, with numerous
references to deep seated issues such as America’s “original sin” (Obama, 2015) of
slavery, or tangential problems like poverty and gun violence, he would routinely
return to a positive tone, underscoring a “collective destiny” (Obama, 2006).

For example, his frequent use of phrases like “we must work together” or references
to a “common humanity under God” reinforce this effort to appeal to a diverse
audience, while framing challenges as opportunities for collective growth.

In his 2008 address after securing the presidential election (Obama, 2008), he makes
reference to the an inherent unity bestowed upon every American, claiming that
“young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian,
Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled …we have never been a
collection of red states and blue states; we are, and always will be, the United States
of America.” (Obama, 2008). This was a clear rejection of hierarchy, in lieu of a more
unified front of equity.

While in some respects, framing himself as a political outsider “I was never the
likeliest candidate for this office”, he in the same speech establishes Sentiments of
new beginnings, saying that “at this defining moment, change has come to America!”
(Obama, 2008). This particular refrain echoes an ideal shared in Scripture, specifically
Isaiah 43:19, which reads, "See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you
not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland."
(NIV, 1973).

Elsewhere in his 2008 speech, he mentions concepts such as hope, faith, and
perseverance and the belief in divine providence. There are also multiple references to
religious figures, like Martin Luther King Jr, and religious phrases like "We Shall
Overcome" highlighting the inclusive role of faith in black American history.

Explicit appeals to unity and peace, such as in an allusion to Abraham Lincoln’s

desire to heal divisions, resonate with Christian values of reconciliation and
forgiveness, and direct quotes from Scripture, namely Proverbs 22:6, when he says
“my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he
will not turn from it.” (Obama, 2006).

Not surprisingly, he also often end his addresses with a clear invocation of God's
blessing, which ties together themes of collective hope and divine guidance threaded
throughout. Themes difficult to elucidate from a purely quantitative examination.

2. Metamorphic Frame:
The metamorphic frame appeared 46 times (0.48% of total word count) and reflects
Obama’s emphasis on transformation and renewal. By employing religious imagery to
encourage change—both personal and societal—Obama connects his political ideals
to a spiritual call for growth.

Examples include references to God’s “amazing grace” and man’s “collective

salvation” (Obama, 2015). Serving as a complement to his inclusivity, while offering
a vision of progress grounded in morality and redemption.

In this speech, Eulogy for Reverend Clementa Pickney (2015), Obama illustrates a
compelling use of the metamorphic frame. Here is a powerful example of how one
uses such language to emphasize transformation, renewal, and divine purpose.

By his frequent suggestions of grace and hope, Obama utilizes the frame to inspire
both individual and collective growth, linking spiritual transformation to societal
change. His rhetorical choices not only honor Reverend Pinckney’s life but also
challenge the audience to embrace the possibility of redemption through action.

The concept of grace is central to Obama’s metamorphic framing in this eulogy. It is a

theme repeated throughout, weaved into his message of hope and transformation.

Beginning with an exegesis of Hebrews 11, Obama makes a point to prioritise biblical
language, an appropriate choice given his audience, the moment, and against the
backdrop of a historically black church on the south side of Chicago.
“The Bible calls us to hope. To persevere and have faith in things not seen…”, here he
invoked the biblical proposition of other worldliness, stating that “They [the victims]
did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a
distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on Earth.”

Elsewhere he also alludes to the Pauls letter to Timothy, the book of Psalms and
Isaiah, a story found in 2 Kings, and Jesus’ claim that He alone is “the way, and the
truth, and the life.” (NIV, 1973). This is punctuated beautifully by his singing the
famed hymn, ‘Amazing Grace’, along with the congregation – bolstering his use of
the inclusive frame, while creating new pathways to the transformative.

The ‘call and response’ tradition common in black churches is also on full display,
highlighting another dimension of inclusion difficult to parse by mere numerical data.

While watching a recording of this speech, I couldn’t help but notice the constant
need for Obama to pause due to the frequent applause, shouts, and shared sentiments
echoed from the crowd.

Statements such as “Grace is the free and benevolent favor of God” mentioning how
it is “manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.” (Obama,
2015) illustrate his theological grounding, presenting grace as both a personal gift and
a catalyst for societal change.

Obama underscores the transformative power of grace, particularly in the wake of

tragedy, as when he states, “We may not have this grace…with our rancor and
complacency...but He gave it to us anyway.” (Obama, 2015)
 Elsewhere, more politically aligned talking points like calls to end gun violence
alongside the removal of Confederate monuments suggest a deep rhetorical
awareness, specifically, of his global audience. Both the faith-filled crowd inside the
church, and the pragmatic skeptics outside of it.

This framing aligns with the biblical notion of unmerited favor, reminding his
audience that grace transcends human shortcomings and can inspire meaningful
restoration. By connecting grace to a profound understanding of faith, Obama not
only pays tribute to the pastor’s legacy, but calls on his audience to embody grace
through action: “To settle for symbolic gestures without following up with the hard
work of more lasting change [is] how we lose our way again.” (Obama, 2015).

In doing this, he transforms the religious concept from a theological abstraction to a

moral imperative for social justice and unity, offering a vision of hope and possibility.

3. Exclusive Frame:
Although the exclusive frame was the least utilized by Obama, with 39 instances
(0.41% of total word count), it played a strategic role in highlighting distinctions
between right and wrong or condemning divisive behavior.

This limited but deliberate usage reflects Obama’s cautious approach to confrontation,
employing exclusivity only when necessary to critique injustice or inequality; though
he also employs the frame to critique his own party when it comes to the issue of
public affirmations of faith. “Having voluntary student prayer groups use school
property to meet should not be a threat…” or similarly, “It is doubtful that children
reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of
muttering the phrase 'under God.'” (Obama, 2006).

Rare mentions calling for the rejection of hatred and division, even in his 2015 eulogy
for the slain pastor, illustrate how exclusivity was used sparingly, and only as
reinforcement for his broader message of unity.

Donald Trump

1. Metamorphic Frame:
Trump’s dominant use of the metamorphic frame, with 17 instances (0.28% of total
word count), underscores a rhetorical emphasis on transformation and renewal, albeit
in a markedly different style from Obama’s.

Trump’s use of this frame often oscillated between invocations of dramatic change
and calls for a return to traditional values, blending the concepts of growth and
nostalgia.

Examples include proclamations to “restore America to greatness” (Trump, 2024) or

to lead America to back to “great prosperity and strength.” (Trump, 2017).

In the 2017 address shortly after his first presidential victory, Trump deepened the
appeal by directly including his audience in this vision: “Your voice, your hopes, and
your dreams will define our American destiny. And your courage, goodness, and love
will forever guide us along the way.” (Trump, 2017).
 Pairing the universal “you” with ideas like “courage, goodness, and love” can incur a
sense of temporal inclusion, while still maintaining a space for the metamorphosing of
timeless qualities; qualities which are then said to “forever guide us”, indicating
eternal origin and common destiny.

This relatively heavy reliance on metamorphic imagery aligns with a postmodernist

perspective, appealing to audience uncertainty by ironically offering both
transformation, and stability.

2. Inclusive Frame:
With only 5 instances of the inclusive frame (0.08% of total word count), Trumpian
discourse reflect a significantly lower emphasis on unity when compared to Obama.

When inclusivity was employed, it often came in the form of broad appeals to
national identity, such as statements emphasising “America’s glorious destiny.”
(Trump, 2017). However infrequent these moments, they remained incisive and
timely, such was the case in Trumps 2020 speech at a ‘Rally for Life’ event.

Context here is important, as the debate between of pro-life vs pro-choice has been
one integral to much of American politics, and this speech in particular may have
been the primary foreshadow to events that led to the overturning of Roe v Wade
which occurred 2 years after this address.

The inclusive frame utilised here was not merely linguistic, as I counted 49 instances
across the short address of audience interaction, whether in the form of cheers,
applause, or direct response (e.g. “four more years!”).

In this speech, he makes frequent mention for ideas regarding the “sanctity of human
life” and how children are a “gift from God”, a clear supplication toward religious
inclusion, though in a way which contrasts the more harmonious inclusion of Obama.

By drawing a proverbial line in the sand, Trump doubles down on the concept of
community, reinforces the boundaries of the traditional family, and reanimates a spirit
of singularity – even going so far as to quote Psalm 139:14, which says that human
beings are; “wonderfully made.” (NIV, 1973).

Despite the relatively low usage of this frame when observed as an objective measure,
a deeper analysis suggests intentionality and prioritization behind his use of the
collective frame, even as it potentially serves the function of ‘us vs them’.

3. Exclusive Frame:
Unexpectedly, the exclusive represents Trump’s least used the three frames, with 4
instances (0.07% of total word count). This is especially surprising given his
reputation for divisive rhetoric.

However, when observed subjectively, exclusivity did seem to appear quite often,
though often tied in with the previous two frames. It was also more penetrating than
Obama’s exclusive rhetoric, though percentagewise used far less, I would argue that
Trumps exclusive frame projected a more marked impact.
 Unsurprisingly, Trumps use of the exclusive frame was often direct and assertive,
targeting perceived threats or opposition groups.

Examples include suggestions to reject those who appear to undermine Western

values, at one point imploring his supporters to “[stand] against Radical Islamic
Terrorism.” (Trump, 2017). This seems like an overt call for religious exclusion,
though, as none of the terms used appear on the prescriptive list of religious rhetoric
(Domke & Coe, 2008), it did not appear in the final qualitative analysis.

As a final point, Trump often juxtaposes this exclusionary rhetoric with puzzling, and
seemingly contradictory statements. This is a characteristic trait of the metamodern
era of interpretation, which posits that a culture may fluctuate between opposing
extremes in order to discover its true ideological equilibrium (Kirby, 2006).

This is likely why his use of metamorphism nearly quadruples his use of the other two
linguistic frames, and this is most clearly shown in his most recent speech during the
recent 2024 victory address. In it he flatly stated that, “We're going to have to seal up
those borders”, though with his very next breath, he said, “and we're going to have to
let people come into our country. We want people to come back in.” (Trump, 2024).

On one hand, he states “we must protect our borders from the ravages of other
countries … destroying our jobs”, while on the other, he claims “we will seek
friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world” (Trump, 2017).

It is why such instances of exclusivity, though numerically few, are disproportionately

provoking. A tenet both of meta modernism, and asymmetric warfare, aligning with
Trump’s focus on asserting strength while delineating clear boundaries.

Comparative Insights

Due to word count constraints, I am unable to thoroughly recount the myriad relevant
examples with which these three religious frames are apparent across the selected texts, but in
the appendix section, one can examine my annotations of both Obama (cite) and Trump (cite)
and their collection of six addresses in more detail.

The stark contrast in frame usage between the two reflect divergent rhetorical styles and
political philosophies, and more broadly, they reflect the shifting cultural ethics within which
each framing narrative was conceived and embodied.

Obamas political inception near the tail end of the postmodern era seems to embody a
philosophy of collective prosperity, clearly aligning with an inclusive frame.

Despite this, and perhaps in a rush to seal the void of cynicism left by abdicated cultural
narratives, decaying social institutions, and a wholesale rejection of politics as usual, his
rhetoric largely avoided confrontation and discord, even in the face of clear and obvious
divisions that continued to linger into the new millennium.

Trump’s rhetoric paradoxically acted as a salve to Obama’s premature idealism, filling the
ideological vacuum left across swaths of rural America.
By addressing head on those issues unaccounted by more progressive thinkers, he was able to
successfully identify and extract emotional touch points of the nation’s underbelly while
simultaneously encapsulating a spirit of ‘us vs. them’, however amorphous (or direct) ‘they’
may be. In doing this, Trump atypically embodied a metamorphic frame, via an ethic which
combatted that which many working-class Americans deemed as pretentious and naïve, as
evidenced by the overwhelming rejection of the Left’s agenda in the United State’s most
recent presidential election.

Obama’s extensive use of inclusivity accentuates a hyperfocus on unity and shared purpose,
framing political challenges as opportunities for collective action. Trump’s limited use of this
frame suggests a different strategy, one that relies less on appeals to unity and more on
provocative rhetorical devices to engage his base.

Both leaders employed the metamorphic frame, but to different ends. For Obama, this frame
reinforced a message of growth and progress, keeping in step with an urgency to return to
modernist principles in the face of postmodernist suspicions. For Trump, this frame was
typified by a sort of bombastic ambivalence. Undulating between criticism and praise, while
maintaining a focus on transformation as a return to greatness, blending change with
tradition, and mixing notions of major reform with ballasts of manifest destiny.

Both Obama and Trump minimized their use of the exclusive frame, and this may be a more
indicative of a general political strategy that avoids alienating one’s political home front, than
of any fixed characteristic of either speaker. Obama’s limited and modest exclusion reflected
a broader commitment to unification, while Trump’s infrequent but assertive exclusivity
aligned with a more polarizing and confrontational worldview.

These findings highlight the distinct ways in which Obama and Trump engage with religious
language to achieve their rhetorical goals. While Obama’s speeches reflect a modernist ethos,
emphasizing progress and moral clarity, Trump’s rhetoric exhibits a metamodern quality,
oscillating between calls for transformation and appeals to tradition.

This divergence reveals how each leader navigates the complexities of their socio-political
contexts, offering audiences opposing visions of leadership and identity.

Conclusion

This study analyzed how biblical language augments cultural meaning through three
interpretive frames: inclusive, exclusive, and metamorphic. By examining 15 scriptural
passages across five translations and six political speeches (three by Barack Obama and three
by Donald Trump), the research identified distinct patterns in the use of these frames, each
reflecting unique rhetorical and cultural priorities.

Integration of Findings

The content analysis revealed that the metamorphic frame was the most frequently
employed across all Bible translations, averaging just under 1% incidence. This frame
emphasized transformation, renewal, and divine intervention, with the King James Version
(KJV) leading in metamorphic usage (19 instances, 0.97%). The inclusive frame, though less
frequent, demonstrated a steady presence across translations, particularly in the New
International Version (NIV), which recorded the highest proportion of inclusive language
(0.46%). Meanwhile, the exclusive frame was the least employed, with only 0.25%
incidence on average, suggesting a limited focus on hierarchy and in-group/out-group
distinctions in the passages analyzed. The Passion Translation (TPT) had the most exclusive
language but balanced it with significant instances of metamorphic and inclusive framing.

The discourse analysis provided a striking contrast between Barack Obama’s and Donald
Trump’s rhetorical use of these frames.

Obama’s speeches heavily relied on the inclusive frame (103 instances, 1.08%), positioning
him as a unifying leader who framed social hardships as opportunities for joint action. His
usage of the metamorphic frame complemented this inclusivity, emphasizing themes of
grace, transformation, and hope for societal renewal, while his minimal use of the exclusive
frame further reinforced his focus on unity and collective progress.

Conversely, Trump’s speeches leaned heavily on the metamorphic frame (17 instances,
0.28%), often blending transformation with nostalgic appeals to tradition, such as restoring
America’s "greatness." His use of the inclusive frame was significantly lower, emphasizing a
narrower definition of community, often grounded in national or religious identity. The
exclusive frame was also used sparingly, yet its directness amplified its rhetorical impact,
demarcating ideological boundaries and asserting political strength.

Together, these findings illuminate how biblical language functions as a cultural tool; it can
either unify or divide, preserve tradition, or inspire transformation – and in some instances –
it can do both simultaneously.

The relative dominance of the metamorphic frame across both sacred texts and political
speeches suggests a shared emphasis on the reformation of social order with respect to eternal
principles. Meanwhile, differences in the use of inclusive and exclusive frames often reveal
leadership styles, rhetorical strategies, and socio-historical contexts.