Pub Theology 10/6/25 -- Separating church and hate
Peter Trumbore • October 6, 2025
First a disclaimer: Despite appearances to the contrary, this is neither a book review nor an endorsement of the new book by actor, comedian, and political commentator John Fugelsang titled "Separation of Church and Hate: A Sane Person's Guide to Taking Back the Bible from Fundamentalists, Fascists, and Flock-Fleecing Frauds." From the title you get the general idea of where the author is going with this.
Fugelsang's story is a compelling one. He was raised in a large politically, ethnically, religiously, and racially diverse family as a progressive Roman Catholic by a mother who was a former nun and a father who was a former Franciscan monk. As he puts it in the introduction to his book, "I am here because two people broke a promise to God." What he wrestles with in this book is how to come to terms with, and then fight back against, what he views as the hijacking of Christianity and the abandonment of the faith that Jesus taught by religious and political leaders who have perverted the religion in the pursuit of their own power and selfish interests.
In the introduction, Fugelsang writes: "This is a book about what Christianity started out as, what it became, and why it's still worth fighting for. ... The extreme right uses Jesus' name as camouflage. This is a guide to camouflage removal."
In building our conversation this week around this book, I acknowledge from the start that none of us have (probably) read it. My copy is on its way thanks to The House of Bezos. In the meantime, you can read Fugelsang's introduction by clicking on this link. You can also watch Fugelsang's appearance on The Daily Show by following this link. But I think we can still have a quality discussion around some of what he raises. First, before we talk about the message, let's talk about the messenger. Fugelsang admits that he is no member of the clergy, nor scholar, nor theologian. So what qualifies him to write this book and level the critiques he makes? In short, does the messenger matter? Some quotes from the book will also serve as spurs to our conversation.
- “I generally trust people who are seeking the truth; I tend to be wary of those who claim they’ve found it.”
- “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” (Quoting Susan B. Anthony)
- “In focusing on what cannot be proven, many Christians fall into the trap of a Christianity that’s more about defending the supernatural than embodying the moral teachings of Jesus. It’s not the miracles driving people away from religion, it’s the Christians who don’t live by Jesus’s words about how we’re supposed to treat each other.”
- “[R]emember—if your church isn’t telling you to love your enemies but keeps telling you who your enemies are, you’re not really in a church.”
- “And that’s the point. We’re called to follow Christ, not the Bible. In fact, please understand this: the Bible does not tell us to follow the Bible. The Bible tells us to follow Christ. But Biblical Christians follow the Bible. They do not, in fact, attempt to follow Christ.”
- “Not only are Christians supposed to prioritize following Jesus’s words above the other parts of the Bible, that’s also quite literally why this religion got its name.”
- “These were the fundamentalists, the power-hungry grifters who took advantage of the fact that most people don’t know the Bible all that well. They were charlatans, frauds, hypocrites, and villains. And they made for great TV.”
- “Spiritual people use religion to become better people. Fundamentalists use religion to pretend they’re better than other people.”
- “And I was taught—relentlessly—that Christianity was about the things Jesus prioritized: Service to others. Forgiveness. Caring for the poor, the sick, the stranger, the prisoner. Fighting injustice with nonviolence, like Dr. King and Gandhi. Standing up for the less fortunate, like Dorothy Day and Catholic Charities. Love. Empathy. Compassion.”
Obviously, no collection of cherry-picked quotations can capture the totality of Fugelsang's argument. But it can be our jumping off point for discussion. Join us tomorrow evening, Tuesday Oct. 7, starting at 7pm at Irish Tavern in downtown Lake Orion.
Rem ember, you are dust.
Every now and again we dip into the archives to bring back a topic from a past discussion. When you've been doing this for more than a dozen years, there's plenty of good stuff to revisit. So we're doing that this week, and it turns out to be a surprisingly timely decision. Next Tuesday marks Random Acts of Kindness Day (yes, really), and it turns out that nine years ago, almost to the very day, our conversation revolved around the idea of random acts of kindness. Since we last talked about it, the idea of random acts of kindness has become surprisingly institutionalized. According to the Random Acts of Kindness Foundation , which actively encourages just such things, "When we choose kindness, our brains light up with oxytocin, dopamine, and connection; reminding us that kindness is not just good for the world, it is good for us." And almost 250,000 people worldwide have signed up with the foundation as RAKtivists, pledging to try to make the world a better place one act of kindness at a time. For its part, the foundation, which aims to make kindness a norm, offers kindness tips and suggestions, creates teaching materials, and encourages kindness in our schools, homes, and in our workplaces. For example, when on social media they suggest: "Scroll until you see someone's creative effort -- a drawing, recipe, a photo -- and leave a genuine, specific compliment." To be honest, that sounds like a really nice idea! Here's the prompt from our discussion way back in 2017: In 1982 Anne Herbert wrote the phrase "practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty" on a restaurant placemat in Sausalito, Calif. Since then, the call to practice random acts of kindness has become firmly rooted in our social culture. So what's an example of this? When's the last time you were on the receiving end of a random act of kindness? What did that feel like? When was the last time you performed one? How did that make you feel? Is such a gesture really meaningful, or is it a way to avoid making kindness a part of our everyday lives and routines? Join us for the conversation tomorrow evening, Tuesday February. 10 starting at 7pm. We gather at Irish Tavern in downtown Lake Orion.
This Sunday, all are welcome to join us for a morning of worship and fellowship. Whether you are with us in the sanctuary or joining from afar, your presence strengthens our community. Our service is at 9:30 a.m. We warmly welcome those who cannot attend in person to join us via our live stream.
Where Did Early Christians Think Their Borders Were?
Just when I thought we had exhausted the possible universe of discussion topics about all the various and troubling ways that artificial intelligence technologies are promising to reshape the human experience (and rarely are these for the good) I come across another example that makes my head spin. This one is populated by what are called "deadbeats" being built by companies in what is coming to be known as the "digital-afterlife industry." There's a long article over at The Atlantic's website ( click here for a gift link to the story ) that goes into detail about the people and the companies developing the products that in some cases promise to make grief obsolete by giving users AI chatbot versions of deceased loved ones -- for a monthly subscription fee, of course. Or, in industry parlance, access to AI "deadbot" versions of those loved ones. And it seems that this is a lucrative technology. In 2024, the industry was valued at more than $22 billion, a sum expected to more than triple in less than 10 years. There are a lot of questions that emerge as we think about what all of this means for the way we experience grief and loss: "'Deadbots,' as these posthumous AI creations are known, promise to replace the dead, and the way they are remembered. This raises plenty of ethical issues, not least the extent to which turning deadbots into marketable products will rely on exploiting people in mourning. But perhaps the biggest question is how such a product might shift our experience of personal grief and collective memory. Is grief merely a painful human shortcoming that we haven’t learned to optimize our way out of yet, or does it have a purpose?" As the article makes clear, this technology is very different from the familiar ways we have come to memorialize those we have lost, whether through portraiture, literature, memoir, and so on, which are interpretive expressions of the living's memories of the dead. Instead, "Interactive griefbots are generative, producing “new utterances, new reactions, even new ‘memories’ and ‘behaviors,’ all under the guise of the deceased,” she said. This shift from representation to emulation presents a new ethical line, one that may require new legal protections. Both death and grief are states of profound vulnerability, she warned; the dead cannot stand up for their own interests, and the bereaved may not be in a psychological state to protect themselves from financial manipulation by a company incentivized to prolong their grief. One company, called You, Only Virtual, or YOV, says its point isn't to make grief easier, but rather to bypass it altogether. The company launched with the tagline, "Never have to say goodbye," and promises a user experience that will make you feel as if your loved one never died. In other words, they are promising not to capture every aspect of the person who has passed, but instead to capture how the user felt with that person when they were alive. The point of the interaction is "about inducing the emotions of the living, not imitating the emotions of the dead." We're going to talk about all of this in our conversation this week. Not just about the technology, but about grief itself, how we experience it, and what grief does to and for us. Read the article by clicking on the link above, then join us for the discussion this Tuesday, Feb. 3, starting at 7pm at Irish Tavern in downtown Lake Orion.
This Sunday, all are welcome to join us for a morning of worship and fellowship. Whether you are with us in the sanctuary or joining from afar, your presence strengthens our community. Our service is at 9:30 a.m. We warmly welcome those who cannot attend in person to join us via our live stream.
"...Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances..."
This Sunday, all are welcome to join us for a morning of worship and fellowship. Whether you are with us in the sanctuary or joining from afar, your presence strengthens our community. Our service is at 9:30 a.m. We warmly welcome those who cannot attend in person to join us via our live stream.
Sheep in the Midst of Wolves
It has been our practice in recent years to try to build our discussion around the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. whenever our conversation falls around the celebration of his birthday. This seems especially appropriate this year given the events unfolding in Minneapolis and elsewhere since the start of the new year. This time we're going to focus on the idea referenced in our illustration above. This is often misquoted as "the arc of the universe ..." which leaves out King's important qualifier, the "moral," universe, not the universe more generally. Before we did deeper, what do you think is the key difference or differences between the two ideas, the universe generally vs. the moral universe? King used this quote many times in his sermons and speeches, and according to Stanford University historian Clayborn Carson , he borrowed it from 1850s abolitionist Theodore Parker. In fact, King drew quite heavily on the oratorical tradition of the early abolitionists, bringing their words and sentiments to bear in the 1960s struggle for civil rights. But what are they getting at here? Is the idea that while things may be bad now, if we wait long enough the scales will tilt to the side of justice? Or is it not that simple. What this little snippet of a quote does not do, is give any suggestion as to how the arc of the moral universe bends. Or what is required to make it do so. So what do you think? If the arc of the moral universe ultimately bends toward justice, by what mechanism or mechanisms does it do so? And what is our role in that process? Now that I think about it, this train of thought is kind of a continuation of something we landed on last week in our discussion of hope. James McGrath, a professor of New Testament language and literature at Butler University, addresses things this way: "The arc of the universe may bend towards justice, but it certainly does not do so in a steady and straight line. Precisely because of the slow but real progress ... the racists, misogynists, antisemites, Islamophobes, and homophobes are offering a backlash. Progress towards equality has always involved a process like this. It is important to emphasize that, because those of us who are living through this particular moment can feel like these are unprecedented times." Join us for the conversation this week as we talk about the arc of the moral universe and how it bends. And if this isn't a meaty enough topic, here's one more MLK quote that we can chat about if we have the time: "If any earthly institution or custom conflicts with God’s will, it is your Christian duty to oppose it. You must never allow the transitory, evanescent demands of man-made institutions to take precedence over the eternal demands of the Almighty God." The only trick here, of course, is figuring out what does and does not conflict with God's will, and who decides. Come out of the cold this Tuesday evening, Jan. 20, and let us know what you think. The discussion starts at 7pm at Irish Tavern in downtown Lake Orion.