What happens to a civilization when it abandons the authority upon which it was built?
That question emerges from John Fugelsang’s 2025 book Separation of Church and Hate
Fugelsang’s foundational premise is that the Bible we possess today bears little resemblance to what its original authors wrote. He calls Scripture the world’s longest game of telephone, claiming it consists of translations, revisions, and repeatedly copied stories whose original wording is now beyond recovery.
His argument resembles one advanced by journalist Kurt Eichenwald in a 2014 Newsweek article, which portrayed modern Bibles as unreliable translations of endlessly copied manuscripts. Both arguments overlook extraordinary historical evidence.
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
In 1947, ancient manuscripts discovered near the Dead Sea revolutionized biblical scholarship.
Among them were copies of Old Testament writings dating centuries before Christ, approximately a thousand years older than the principal medieval Hebrew manuscripts previously available. The discovery allowed scholars to compare biblical texts separated by nearly a millennium. What did they discover?
Remarkable continuity in the transmission of scripture. The Great Isaiah Scroll demonstrated substantial agreement with the later Masoretic tradition. There were textual variations, some more significant than others. Nevertheless, the manuscripts decisively challenged the caricature of scripture as a collection of stories repeatedly altered beyond recognition. The Masoretic scribes developed elaborate safeguards, including counting words, letters, and verses, to protect the integrity of the biblical text.
The New Testament possesses an equally impressive manuscript tradition. Thousands of Greek manuscripts survive, some dating to the second century. Scholars possess an extensive body of evidence with which to examine textual transmission and reconstruct earlier readings. We do not possess the original biblical autographs. That does not mean we know nothing about what their authors wrote.
Fugelsang’s telephone analogy substitutes a memorable insult for serious engagement with textual scholarship, but his argument concerning scripture is only the beginning.
The deeper issue is authority.
THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION AND MORAL AUTHORITY
Once scripture is dismissed as an unreliable record of divine revelation, man becomes free to determine which biblical teachings deserve acceptance and which may be discarded.
Fugelsang advances a Christianity compatible with contemporary progressive positions on sexuality, abortion, and marriage. But by what authority does he determine which biblical teachings represent authentic Christianity?
Italian philosopher Augusto Del Noce (1910-1989) recognized the relationship between abandoning transcendent authority and transforming Western moral culture. He argued that the sexual revolution represented more than changing private behavior. It was a philosophical revolution redefining human freedom by removing inherited moral restraints.
Del Noce examined Wilhelm Reich, whose writings associated sexual liberation with broader social transformation. The implications were profound. If human fulfillment becomes primarily the satisfaction of desire, what becomes of man created in God’s image?
What becomes of moral obligation? What becomes of the family? What becomes of a civilization that once understood liberty as freedom under moral law?
Marcello Pera, former President of the Italian Senate, likewise warned that abandoning Christianity threatens Western civilization’s moral foundations. The Christian understanding of human dignity places limits upon political power. Human rights do not originate with government. Moral authority does not originate with the state. Even rulers stand under judgment.
THE CONTRADICTION FUGELSANG CANNOT ESCAPE
Perhaps the most revealing feature of Fugelsang’s book is his treatment of Jesus Christ.
After questioning whether we can recover what biblical authors originally wrote, he confidently appeals to selected sayings of Jesus as the foundation of his preferred Christianity.
But if scripture is hopelessly corrupted, why should the passages Fugelsang approves be trustworthy while those he rejects are dismissed? He portrays the Apostle Paul as an adversary of early Christianity, despite Paul’s foundational role in the apostolic witness. Yet Christianity is not merely an ethical philosophy assembled from selected sayings of Jesus. Historic Christianity rests upon the incarnation, miracles, atoning death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Remove these foundations and something fundamentally different emerges.
The question is not merely whether Fugelsang correctly understands scripture. It is whether Western civilization can preserve its moral inheritance while rejecting the transcendent authority that helped establish it. Does man discover moral truth within an order that transcends him? Or does he invent moral truth according to the changing preferences of his age? That is the battle behind the battle for the Bible. Who speaks with final authority: God or man?
This article appears in Fall Flavors.