This is the first time I have heard of John Fugelsang so I came into this book not knowing anything about him or his views. John is an American Comedian, TV and radio host, the son of a former Catholic nun and Franciscan brother, he identifies as politically liberal and his radio show often includes political commentary.

John speaks to Theologians, as well as Historians such as Kristin Kobes Du Mez (Author of Jesus and John Wayne), references a lot of book resources, and utilises many publicly accessible facts to support his words. He points out hypocrisy galore, talks about the differing cultural environments of when these scriptures were written, while also diving (albeit lightly) into the History of Christianity itself. He challenges and 'debunks' many Christian Nationalist and Fundamentalist claims regarding LGBTQ+ rights, Misogyny, Abortion, Immigration & Refugees, White Supremacy & Racism, the Death Penalty, Gun ownership, Slavery, Indigenous rights, Jews, Muslims, Atheists. He talks about Christianity not being about Christ, but systems of control and oppression and provides some hard-hitting quotes like this one from Pastor December Rose that can not only be applied to women, but anyone who is not 'men':

"Christianity is inherently sexist, because Christianity did not originate with Christ. Christianity is an institution of systems created by Men for Men. Because of this, women can only fit into roles and ranks that accommodate the minds and motives of the men who created the system."

But John also talks about the Bible being something that should not be taken literally, while also presenting certain gospels of Jesus as unambiguous to interpret, and then talking about the complexity of interpretation with Theologians, while interpreting other psalms and scriptures himself. And it IS interpretation, everything is due to the age, language, and cultural connotations of when these were ‘written’ and compiled.

I understand now that one of the main points of this book was to provide Jesus-backed scripture as counter arguments to hateful claims, but its presented almost as the only way to debate and bring about change. John provides basic tools on effective communication, a large number of statistics, but I find it uncomfortable that emphasis is put on Jesus's message of calm compassion when speaking to those with opposing views while John also highlights repeatedly what damaging and horrific outcomes have resulted from said views (and himself talks about how hateful these people are). John acknowledges that a lot of those who would benefit from this book, will just not be receptive to the message, and I'm left then wondering why we aren't coming back to the glaring elephant in the room that is religion should have no weight in the governing of a country - separation of church and hate in my mind also includes the separation of church and state. Two lines of scripture that have had hundreds of grubby hands on it, edited translated, cut and pasted to marry whatever agenda fit the political climate, or opinion of men in charge at the time, should hold no sway in government. The bible has no effective self-correcting mechanisms as an information system which is why other systems with checks and balances, like legislation should exist - open public review and separation of powers are integral. When it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter that Paul said it, not Jesus, you can say we are throwing out Jesus and the Old Testament to cling to one line from Paul all you want but Paul's vitriol and opinions have been canonised and will forever be utilised in these contexts, used to justify inequality and oppression. All of these arguments seem performative.

I appreciate how open John is about his upbringing, his beliefs, his own struggles. I appreciate his willingness to tackle a lot of difficult topics. I also appreciate how he acknowledges sometimes he shouldn't be the main voice in the room - such as in the chapter about Abortion where he says he identifies as male and his "opinion on abortion is that male opinions on abortion don't matter." At the end of the day however, this feels like a book that decent people with similar views to John would read, nod enthusiastically in agreement, be appropriately shocked in the right places, then pat themselves on the back and go about their day. I wanted to see larger calls to action, definitive steps to have broader impact. I agree debate, conversation, and making small changes with family members is incredibly important but it is a tiny drop that cannot gain enough momentum to make needed changes in time. It's like when the airline asks you to donate a few dollars to offset your carbon emissions and then they use said money to purchase carbon credits to look good on paper. You would have more of an impact joining a regular community planting event who need your help. I am sure there are many charities and organisations combating hate in America, and I wish John had advocated for these as much as he advocated for the fact those that follow Christ, aren't the 'Christians' you see out there.

I am not based in the US, I am not religious despite growing up in a Catholic household, so perhaps despite what the blurb says I am not the target audience and I am being too harsh. But I cannot feel that if your book states its for Atheists or Agnostics who believe religion is not needed to be a good person, you should be exploring that more rather than one-line saying you don't need to hold a religion to spread love and compassion. And if your book talks about, and combats claims that are currently dominating the political landscape in America, you should address religion being utilised at the governmental level. This book would've made more sense to me titled 'Jesus would not be a modern-day Christian and here is why'

Note: I listened to the audiobook, narrated by John Fugelsang himself. I do not have a paper copy to check whether there was an included bibiliography.