Editor’s note: It is BNG’s practice, when possible, to present diverse viewpoints in our opinion section. The piece below was written at the editor’s request to represent a conservative viewpoint that will resonate with readers who consider themselves centrists and advance conversation among all.
The misuse of Scripture is not the property of one political party or one ideology. It is a bipartisan failure of imagination — a sign that our political life has become unmoored from the biblical story that once shaped our moral vocabulary.
In recent months, I have written about progressive misreadings of Scripture, including the theological shortcuts I believe are taken by Texas Senate candidate James Talarico. But the same collapse of moral imagination appears — often more dramatically — on the MAGA Right, where Scripture is invoked to sanctify grievance, domination and national chosenness.
Joe Marlow
These two misuses look different on the surface. One baptizes expressive individualism; the other baptizes political power. One collapses biblical teaching into the language of self‑expression; the other collapses it into the language of cultural conquest. But beneath these differences lies a shared temptation: The desire to remake God in our image.
This is not a crisis of exegesis. It is a crisis of imagination.
The progressive temptation: Scripture as self‑expression
James Talarico’s recent biblical claims — God as “nonbinary,” compassion as justification for abortion, Christian faith as requiring affirmation of same‑sex marriage — reflect a familiar pattern among progressive politicians. The Bible becomes a mirror for modern intuitions rather than a world that forms our desires.
This is not simply a theological misstep. It is a failure of moral imagination.
A healthy biblical imagination receives the world before remaking it, treats limits as gifts rather than obstacles, discovers moral truth rather than inventing it.
From my vantage, Talarico’s approach, like much of progressive Christianity, reverses this order. It treats Scripture as raw material for self‑expression. It collapses transcendence into sentiment. It offers comfort without conversion.
This is Christianity without a cross.
President Donald Trump holds a Bible as he visits outside St. John’s Church across Lafayette Park from the White House Monday, June 1, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)
The MAGA temptation: Scripture as a weapon of power
If the Left misuses Scripture to affirm the self, the MAGA Right misuses it to defend the tribe. Figures such as Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, the late Charlie Kirk, Mike Johnson and Eric Metaxas routinely invoke biblical language in ways that sacralize domination, grievance and national exceptionalism.
Here, too, the Bible becomes a prop.
When Trump held a Bible aloft in front of St. John’s Church after protesters were forcibly cleared, the gesture was not devotional. It was symbolic — a display of cultural dominance. When Greene calls Christians to “fight like hell,” or Kirk insists Jesus would support aggressive border policies because “nations need walls,” Scripture is not being interpreted. It is being conscripted.
This is not conservative Christianity. It is Christianity without repentance.
James Talarico speaks at a campaign rally (Photo provided by Talarico for Senate campaign)
Two misuses, one pattern
Although their political instincts differ, progressive and MAGA misreadings of Scripture share a common structure:
- Both treat the Bible as a tool rather than a teacher. One uses it to affirm identity; the other to fortify power.
- Both collapse the biblical story into the anxieties of the moment. One into the language of self‑expression; the other into the language of national survival.
- Both resist the parts of Scripture that confront their preferred narratives. The Left resists biblical limits; the Right resists biblical humility.
- Both flatten the gospel into slogans. “Love is love” on one side; “Take back our country” on the other.
In both cases, the Bible is not allowed to interrogate our politics. It is used to baptize them.
The crisis beneath the crisis
The deeper problem is not that politicians misquote Scripture. It is that our culture has lost the moral imagination required to read Scripture truthfully.
A biblical imagination teaches us to hold together:
- Justice and mercy
- Truth and compassion
- Freedom and responsibility
- Welcome and repentance
When Scripture is reduced to inspirational quotes or political ammunition, we lose the capacity to think in these terms. We lose the grammar of covenant. We lose the narrative that teaches us how to love our neighbor, restrain our desires and pursue the common good.
“A society that treats the Bible as a political accessory will eventually treat human beings the same way.”
A society that treats the Bible as a political accessory will eventually treat human beings the same way.
Why this matters for our constitutional republic
Public theology — when done well — does not bend Scripture to fit the moment. It brings Scripture to bear on the moment, even when it cuts against our preferences.
This is essential for a pluralistic democracy. When the Left uses Scripture to sacralize self‑expression, and the Right uses it to sacralize domination, we lose the shared moral vocabulary required for civic life. We lose the ability to name sin without collapsing into shame or to name dignity without collapsing into self‑worship.
We lose the very imagination that sustains a free and faithful people.
Toward a more courageous public faith
The task before us is not to reclaim a Christian nation. It is to recover a Christian imagination — one shaped by the biblical story rather than the anxieties of the news cycle.
This requires:
- Humility: Letting Scripture interrogate our politics
- Courage: Naming moral truths even when unfashionable
- Compassion: Protecting the vulnerable without redefining vulnerability
- Hope: Trusting that God’s reality is more solid than our cultural moment
A faithful public theology — whether progressive, conservative or somewhere in between — must hold together two commitments: the radical welcome of Jesus and the radical transformation his grace demands.
To lose either is to lose the gospel.
And, once again, as my Oklahoma kin and Texas friends might say: Much of our public biblical rhetoric today — Left and Right — is “all hat and no cattle.”
Joe D. Marlow is a theologian, historian, educator and writer retired in South Lyon, Mich. This essay will be part of his fifth book, Mapping the Terrain of America: Essays in Moral Imagination, to be published later this year.