Comedian John Fugelsang recently released Separation of Church and Hate: A Sane Person’s Guide to Taking Back the Bible from Fundamentalists, Fascists, and Flock-Fleecing Frauds. Fugelsang argues that the Bible’s message has been distorted by far-right, politically activated, fundamentalist Christians, noting,
“This book is about what Christianity started out as, what it became, and why it’s still worth fighting for. It’s about the grotesque mutation that is Christian nationalism and how fundamentalism has always been the opposite of Jesus, even though it gets most of the TV airtime. And it’ll show how the best of Christianity has always pushed back against the worst of it.”
A bold claim, but one for which much evidence could likely be mustered (see my treatment of various political uses of Scripture in Serpents and Doves: Christians, Politics, and the Art of Bearing Witness).
I haven’t been shy in my critiques of Christian nationalism or of politicians who press Scripture and theology into the service of their political agendas (e.g., J. D. Vance’s version of the ordo amoris and Josh Hawley’s use of Augustine’s City of God). I tend to agree with Fugelsang’s assertion that the Bible, Christianity, and Christ have been co-opted to serve political and ideological ends.
While I share Fugelsang’s concern, I don’t agree with his perspective. Why? In my estimation, Fugelsang diminishes the authority of Scripture just like those he is attempting to confront and correct. By critiquing an overly literal view of the text (which he rightly identifies as problematic), he ends up offering simple, unnuanced interpretations, denying the cohesive nature of the biblical text (e.g., pitting Jesus against Paul), and using selective readings to undergird his arguments.
Though I affirm classical doctrines like biblical inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy, it is what these doctrines entail that is often at issue. For instance, we not only need to affirm that the Bible is infallible, inerrant, and inspired, but also that:
1. The Bible doesn’t exist to serve our ambitions or interests.
As the final authority for life and faith. While it may seem tempting to “take back the Bible,” what we really need to do is resituate ourselves in relation to it.
2. Our interpretations of the inerrant biblical text are not themselves inerrant.
Too often, proponents of a given position insist that interpretations, however plausible, that are different from their own deny inerrancy. The doctrine becomes a way to diminish rival interpreters and interpretations instead of providing appropriate constraints for the interpretation of the biblical text.
3. Our convictions about Scripture condition our approach to Scripture.
Our belief in inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy creates an interpretive lens. We believe that even the most troubling aspects of Scripture are truthful to some aspect of reality and are unwilling to dismiss biblical passages as outdated or inconsequential.
These “downstream” convictions about Scripture shape our reading of the biblical text. They help us to remember that limiting the biblical text’s authority over us is problematic. Such limiting is not a “liberal” or “conservative” problem, but a human problem. We often get the biblical text wrong. What we need is not a perfect interpretation, but a humble approach to reading the text that recognizes the various ways we misunderstand God’s word.
For Fugelsang, the interpretation of Scripture is not trivial. He doesn’t dismiss the biblical text as irrelevant, nor does he acknowledge its unqualified authority. While Fugelsang correctly identifies the dangers of politicized Christianity, his approach ends up repeating the same error—subordinating Scripture to human judgment rather than submitting to its authority.
Fundamentalism and the Impossibility of Taking the Bible Literally
Fugelsang describes fundamentalists as believing “that all biblical events, in every chapter, both Old and New Testaments, are 100 percent literal historical records; all dialogue is the absolute, direct, and infallible word of God, with zero room for parable or metaphor.” Yet, his real problem with the movement seems to be the use of the Bible by certain groups and their leaders “to justify their decisions, discourage dissent, and scare away accountability.” Fugelsang rightly recognizes the problems arising when biblical inerrancy and authority are tied to a specific interpretation of the text. Inerrancy becomes a means of condemning other plausible interpretations. His solution, however, is problematic because it also tends to diminish the authority of the biblical text.
“For instance, he argues against ‘literal interpretations,’ which he claims, ‘usually lead to exclusivism.’ He cites John 14:6 as an example, noting, “Some interpret John 14:6 (‘No one comes to the Father except through me’) to exclude all non-Christians from salvation.” It is difficult to see how John 14:6, which begins with “I am the way, and the truth, and the life,” leaves open salvation apart from Jesus Christ. It is an exclusive claim. Fugelsang identifies a legitimate problem—the use of inerrancy to diminish plausible readings of the biblical text—but his solution makes Christianity unintelligible. Christians cannot hold to any exclusive doctrinal convictions under Fugelsang’s framework without being accused of fundamentalism.
Christian conviction creates boundaries. The “trick” is to ensure that those boundaries are neither too broad nor too narrow. Those boundaries can flex, but only to a certain extent. Fugelsang argues that some segment of Christianity (i.e., the fundamentalists) draws the boundaries of the faith too narrowly by making selective understandings of the Bible a litmus test for orthodoxy. Fair enough. Rather than making the opposite mistake, Fugelsang simply narrows the faith in a different direction. Such selectivity reflects a broader cultural impulse to reshape sacred texts according to our moral intuitions rather than allowing them to reshape us.
Whereas those Fugelsang pushes against often advance selective readings of Scripture, so does Fugelsang. Instead of appealing to biblical authority, inerrancy, and literalism to pressure others to conform to a particular view, Fugelsang advocates for a similarly selective approach to the bible which he justifies by (1) noting that Christians don’t keep all the rules anyway, (2) appealing to modern sensibilities and values, and (3) focusing only on some of Jesus’s teachings. While Fugelsang’s approach may seem broader, it is really just narrow in a different way—it brackets out much of the Old Testament and Paul’s letters, opting to develop the Bible’s message from a selection of Jesus’s teachings that support his understanding of Christianity and the way the world works. That selective approach is problematic because it subjects the scriptures to human judgment and reason.
Simple and Unnuanced Interpretation
Though there are many examples of simple and unnuanced interpretations, space does not allow for a comprehensive treatment. As such, I’ll focus on two examples. The first involves a claim concerning the difference between the teachings of Jesus and Paul. Fugelsang suggests, “Jesus specifically says that anyone can get to heaven: “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37). Paul frequently lists specific groups of people who can’t (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).”
The first problem involves the quotation of John 6:37, which reads, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” Fugelsang leaves out the first portion of the verse, which suggests that there is a qualification placed on those who come to Jesus—they are given by the Father. Jesus is not closing the door on anyone, but he does swing the door wide open, either.
Second, the near context references belief in Christ (6:35, 40). As has been suggested by many New Testament scholars, belief involves allegiance—a willingness to conform to Christ’s authority. As such, it is difficult to read John 6:37 as an invitation to come to Jesus on one’s own terms (i.e., without changes in behavior emerging from repentance). Coming to Jesus involves a willingness to live under the authority of Christ, which will necessarily require changes in behavior.
Third, Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 doesn’t say that “the unrighteous” are incapable of repenting and being justified by Jesus Christ. Instead, he is saying that those who remain in unrighteousness—who refuse to accept the authority of Christ and be increasingly conformed to his image—reject the reality of God’s reign. They cannot enter God’s kingdom because they refuse to accept God’s claim on them. In choosing to determine their own way apart from God, they forfeit the opportunity to be “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 6:11).
Does this mean that one drunken night or one moment of greed disqualifies one from inheriting God’s kingdom? Not at all. Given the state of the community in Corinth, it is difficult to believe that Paul is calling for perfection. Instead, Paul is calling the Corinthians (and us!) to adopt a posture open to ongoing submission to Christ’s authority.
Fugelsang’s use of Scripture certainly advances his argument, but his interpretations leave much to be desired. To be fair, Fugelsang admits that he is not a biblical scholar. Still, in choosing to use Scripture in his arguments, Fugelsang has a responsibility to offer plausible interpretations of the biblical text.
Separation of Church and Hate identifies a problem and then participates in it. Christians will not exhibit an unqualified love for God and neighbor by forcing the biblical text into a mold of our own making. Because God’s people believe that the biblical text is the final authority for life and faith, we approach the text seeking to be transformed by it. As Bonhoeffer said during a lecture at an ecumenical conference in Gland, “We are more fond of our own thoughts than of the thoughts of the Bible. We no longer read the Bible seriously; we no longer read it against ourselves but for ourselves.” This way of reading situates us under Scripture’s authority so that even when we get our interpretations wrong (and we will get them wrong), we are open to the teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness the Bible affords (2 Tim 3:16).
Photo Credit: ©iStock/Getty Images Plus/jeffbergen
