	Kingsolver also offers a juxtaposition of religious figures who interpret the same religion in different ways in Nathan and Brother Fowles, a dichotomy which emphasizes the error in pushing Western ideals in Africa. Between the two characters, Nathan is far more inflexible when it comes to his Christian ideology. Much to his chagrin, Brother Fowles—who advocates the African people’s relationship with the land and nature in general—is as well-read as he is. The key difference in their approach, according to Douglas, is that “Fowles dialogues while Nathan preaches and never listens.” Given the identification of the Price women with the Congolese people, it is quite apparent what implications this has. Douglas continues, saying, “Fowles respects cultural differences, while Nathan condemns the partial nakedness of the villagers. Fowles is concerned with health, while Nathan cares only whether souls are saved” 136). It is clear that Kingsolver conceptualized Brother Fowles as a foil for the strict and temperamental Nathan, and she uses their differences to great effect in a confrontation in Book III of The Poisonwood Bible. Upon hearing Nathan recite verbatim a verse from the Bible, Fowles quickly responds, “’Glad tidings of good things,’ that is precious work indeed…Romans, chapter ten, verse fifteen”. Nathan is initially shocked by Fowles’ knowledge of the Bible, having already established the disagreement he had with Fowles’ general outlook on matters. Rachel, who narrates this portion of the story, also takes notice of the situation, saying, “Wow. This Yank knew his Bible. Father took a step backwards on that one.” It should be considered quite significant that Fowles is the only person throughout the entire novel who has this type of effect on Nathan, who hides his shock at the revelation of the man’s undeniably thorough knowledge of the Bible and its countless intricacies. Most importantly, though, is one key difference between each man’s approach explained by Douglas, which is that “Fowles questions the composition of the Bible as writing that transcends culture; Nathan knows the Truth and tells everyone else.” This interpretation essentially allows Fowles to empathize with the Congolese people, whereas Nathan’s views do quite the opposite.
While these aspects reflect a great deal about the novel’s intended meaning, they are not necessarily singling out a single religion for criticism. In an interview with the BBC World Book Club, Kingsolver tells the audience, “[the book] is not really about Christianity; it’s about religion, in some sense.” However, the Christian religion is, to some degree, in conflict with the Congolese people’s belief system at the outset. Its incompatibility with Christianity is likely due to the latter’s ties to Western culture (and vice-versa), and Nathan’s particular brand of Christianity does reflect a darker aspect of religion. On the other hand, Brother Fowles follows the same religion in a different manner which allows him to better understand the Congolese people and their native religion. As Douglas explains, “A simple binary opposition is set up between the good Christian and the bad Christian, and through it, the novel establishes a good religion-bad religion dichotomy.” The novel also describes what Douglas refers to as an impasse in multiculturalism, or a “vacillation between universal and relative claims” in regard to Christianity. In other words, Nathan’s “bad Christianity” represents universal claims which he attempts to use to relate to (and, in some sense, convert) the Congolese people, whereas Fowles’ “good Christianity” is comparatively flexible depending on context. Furthermore, Douglas suggests that Kingsolver’s use of the grafting and gardening metaphors “suggests that what’s wrong with Christian theory and practice is simply that they are not African.” Christianity, then, is used simply because of its pervasiveness in Western civilization (and therefore its symbolic value), and not as the target of Kingsolver’s criticism.
