Episode 252: Steed Davidson – The Bible’s Ambivalence Toward Empire

Pete  

You’re listening to the Bible for Normal People, the only God-ordained podcast on the internet. I’m Pete Enns.

Jared  

And I’m Jared Byas. 

Intro  

Jared  

Well, August is almost upon us. And you know what that means?

Pete  

Oh gosh… No, what does it mean, Jared?

Jared  

It’s time to tell you about our last summer school class of 2023.

Pete  

Aw! Our last one. Well, our August class is called “Universal Salvation is Not Modern: Universal Salvation in Historical and Systematic Perspective.” Very long title. But it’s going to be taught by Dr. Roberto De La Noval.

Jared  

In summary, the class is about Christian universal salvation, which teaches that everyone will eventually be saved or reconciled to God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. And that is a hot topic today, but also, historically.

Pete  

It’s all over Christian history.

Jared  

Yeah, it’s been around.

Pete  

Yep, it’s pretty cool, right.

Jared  

This isn’t just a new thing.

Pete  

And that’s an important point, folks. But when you sign up, you’ll get access to the live one night only class, plus a live Q&A session, a link to the recording afterward, and downloadable class slides.

Jared  

So much. The class, though, is happening live on August 14th. So put that in your calendar folks, August 14th-

Pete  

Do it now.

Jared  

-From 8-9:30pm Eastern Time. And as always, it’s pay-what-you-can until the class ends, and then it’ll cost $25 to download.

Pete  

And if you join our community, Society of Normal People, you can get access to this class and all our other classes for just, how much is that Jared? $12 a month.

Jared  

That’s just like Pete, to ask a question and answer it himself.

Pete  

I know! It’s how I teach. That’s why nobody likes me. Okay, anyway -[Laughs] Go to www.TheBibleForNormalPeople.com/SummerSchool.

Jared  

On today’s episode of the Bible for Normal People, we’re talking about the Bible’s ambivalence toward empire with Steed Davidson.

Pete  

Steed is a very busy guy, listen to this. He’s the Dean of the Faculty and Vice President of Academic Affairs, as well as professor of Hebrew Bible and Old Testament at McCormick Theological Seminary. If that’s not enough, he’s also the executive director of the Society of Biblical Literature.

Jared  

Not to be confused with the Society of Normal People. 

Pete  

No.

Jared  

But similar.

Pete  

Similar, but not at all. 

Jared  

Not at all. There are a lot of ways to interpret the Bible, and we’ve covered a lot of those on the podcast. But we’re excited to learn about another field of study, as we always ask these questions, what is the Bible? And what do we do with it? And I liked that we were talking about yet another lens through which we can read the Bible.

Pete  

Right, so let’s get into our conversation with Steed Davidson.

Steed  

“Whose side is God on? Because the surface reading shows a sense of affinity towards empire, with those on the top. But if you replace that and say now God is a God of those who are on the bottom, you get a different outcome. And part of the outcome is that you recognize that the utility of the empire in the hands of God is ultimately for the liberation and freedom of God’s people.” 

Intro  

Pete  

Steed, welcome to the podcast.

Steed  

Thank you. Thanks very much for having me.

Pete  

It’s great to have you here. So let’s get right into this. I have a cluster of questions just to get us started. What is postcolonial theory or postcolonial studies? And maybe help us understand its roots, how long has this been a conversation in biblical studies? And why did it arise at all?

Steed  

Oh, well, post-colonial studies, like several things in biblical studies, has its roots outside of biblical studies and it was picked up by biblical studies. As best as it could be explained, it’s an area of academic study that is looking at responses to empire and imperial realities. In its use of the “post” in its name, it is exploring, interrogating, looking for what life could look like beyond the construction of empire. So in terms of roots, postcolonial studies finds itself in the midst of anti-imperial movements, say, from the 19th century onwards in different parts of the world. By the end of the 19th century, or even in the early parts of the 20th century, almost 75% of the world was under imperial control in one form or another. And you had a number of different anti-imperial movements starting, which of course led to these decolonial practices throughout much of the 20th century. 

So here comes this body of knowledge, of studying these movements, of trying to understand their roots and their causes and their aspirations and their inputs. So that by, let’s say the 1980s, postcolonial study is being formed much more in terms of an academic feature and looking and trying to analyze what’s going on. So it takes on some of the shape of academic inquiry towards the 1980s. By the late 1990s, biblical scholars are beginning to pick up postcolonial studies as a mode of inquiry and reading, largely because many people are seeing the strong connections to the imperial context in the Bible. 

So it starts off with, some might want to call empire critical studies, it may look like what some people call empire critical studies, where it’s like, it’s a question of, let’s understand the empires that’s behind the biblical story. And of course, some people will recognize that if you follow the trajectory of the Bible, you’re moving through a series of empires that in some ways dominated southwest Asia, it’s the scene where a lot of the biblical narrative takes place. So there was that connection that a number of people started to look at. Later on, a number of other people started to say, “But wait, the Bible finds itself as this big tool of imperialism, what does it mean when the Bible accompanies empire building, as it did, from, say, the 15th-16th century onwards and shaping the modern world?” So, much of this is happening towards the end of the 1990s, into the 2000s. Those tend to be some of the roots and it’s a way for some people to actually articulate now, what does the Bible mean in the context of colonialism? In the context of imperialism? How can it be read? What are the ways in which to read against it? To read with it? And does it help looking at, say, the experiences of people from the ancient world who were colonized? Does it help and give some insight to people who have been colonized in the modern world?

Jared  

Can we maybe just take a step back? Because I think for some people, they don’t even understand what we mean when we talk about empiricism or anti-empiricism or empire. So can you just talk a little bit more about that as a concept, so that then we can kind of put the idea of postcolonial studies in that context?

Steed  

Sure. Well, to begin is to say, look, empire is this experience of one group of people, from a distance, moving themselves across several geographical spaces, conquering, occupying, reconfiguring life in a space that they don’t belong to in some ways, if you want to call it that. And that new space is connected in many different ways with this center, this home area that did the exploration and moving out. So that’s just simply empire as the sense of imposition, and the people who are imposed upon push back against that kind of imposition. That’s anti-imperialism in many ways. It’s the push back against the external forces that have come in, occupied space, tried to change the culture, tried to change the language, you know, do a whole set of reconfiguration of what was happening. And essentially, the closest and very most striking parallel, say, for the Bible, is Roman occupied Palestine, where the Roman empire takes over Jerusalem and Roman forces are a part of Jerusalem. Roman law exists in Jerusalem. The language, you know, Latin is one of the lingua franca for official business. That’s the sort of the closest correlation. And we will see in certain parts of the Gospels, a sense of anti-imperialism, this, if you want to call it hatred or animus towards Rome and things Roman. That’s the kind of closest, that would have happened, say, in some parts of the modern world from the 15th/16th century onwards.

Pete  

Steed, just a brief question here—is there overlap between postcolonial readings and liberation readings?

Steed  

There is. There definitely is some in many ways. I think postcolonial readings take their impetus from liberation studies. I think liberation theology, definitely in the 1960s, was one of the first places we started to see people thinking about imperialism and imperialism as a reality within ancient Christianity. And some people would have started to go even earlier than ancient Christianity, given the fact that ancient Christianity has its roots within the Roman empire. And liberation theology with its links with, say, Marxism, was able to unearth some of those connections and similarities.

Jared  

Going back then, I just want to just kind of set the stage because it struck me in the way you were saying it, in a way that I hadn’t really thought of it. It is a unique thing, it feels like, to have this text that was both written in a context of a colonized or imperialized people and then at some point—not too far into the future, when we think about the long scope of things—to be a text that’s used as a tool for colonization. I don’t know what my question is, other than to point that observation out and say: How did that happen? And does it just speak to the flexibility of a text, that it can be used or originate in a colonized people group and then be used as a tool for colonization, you know, a handful of centuries later?

Steed  

I agree that there is some malleability that texts have in many different ways, and we’ve seen this within the Bible. I tend to locate that flexibility very early within the life of the Christian Bible. And when I say the Christian Bible, I’m thinking about what it is we have, say, by the third/fourth century of the Christian era, that’s where the canon is formed. And these are the books that belong to the Bible and everybody, to some extent, acknowledges, “Okay, this is what the Bible looks like, it consists of these books.” 

And we know we will not always have agreement as to what constitutes the Bible. But that is happening at a time when the Roman empire is moving to endorse Christianity, and in fact, is thinking and moving in the direction of making Christianity part of an imperial religion, or at least it sanctions Christianity, which was not the case several decades earlier. So to the extent that you have, you have a body of text and a literature that an empire looks at and says, “Oh, this is fine, this is great,” suggests—to the extent that they reviewed it—they probably thought “this is harmless.” 

And I think that there are ways in which we have to reckon with the fact that biblical texts may not be as anti-imperialist and resistant to empire as we think that they are. I think there are ways in which you will see antagonism in the biblical text to, say, Babylon, definitely. And some of those antagonisms translate to the Roman empire, say, in the book of Revelation. But the fact that it is against a specific empire doesn’t necessarily mean that it is against empire in general. So that, there could be the Roman empire could look at it and say, “Oh, given all of the negativity against—” (what is never clearly named as the Roman empire, say, in the book of Revelation) but “—given whatever the negativity is towards that particular imperial construction, that’s not us. They’re probably the worst form of empire. We will try to be the good and the best form of empire that we could possibly be because this book is not antagonistic to the idea of empire. It’s just antagonistic to bad and evil empires.”

Jared  

Interesting. Could you say a little bit more? Are there certain texts that give you this indication that the Bible, you said, reflects, you know, strong affinities with empire? That it’s not anti-imperial, it’s just anti-bad forms of empire? Do you have specific texts that you can root that in?

Steed  

Well, I think in some instances, when I do work with, say, the prophetic literature, you could see that. There is a way in which, say, for instance, between Isaiah and Jeremiah—maybe not so much Ezekiel—but Isaiah and Jeremiah, Babylon is grounded to the ground. There is just no redeeming Babylon. It is crunched up, destroyed, wiped off the face of the earth. Egypt, on the other hand, might be given a chance to rehabilitate itself. Some of the—Persia, say, on the other hand, is useful for divine purposes. So, what you see is some kind of selective attention, some empires, particularly the Persian empire. The Persian empire does not receive the same level of vitriol that you will have, say, towards Babylon, or say, towards Rome later on in some of the Christian era texts. Because here’s the thing, the one time in the Hebrew Bible anybody earns the name of Messiah, God’s anointed, it’s the Persian king, Cyrus. 

So there are ways in which you’re seeing some signals of, we could embrace the concepts and the form of empire and make it work. One of the other indications are if you think of the portrait of God that’s painted—certainly in the Hebrew Bible, it’s not as dominant say, in the New Testament—is God as an emperor. As powerful, all-seeing, able to traverse vast geographic spaces, control everything, brings everything on the one. These images that you have, these are pictures of what the successful and powerful emperor looks like. So there are ways in which I think what the Bible is suggesting is God as the ultimate emperor who will do good in the world, because the human ones are problematic. Therefore, what I’m saying is what you have is this picture that says biblical texts reflect these kinds of affinities with the structure and the power and the functions of empire with the hope that it will become this tool for God in the world. So it’s like just get rid of the awful human constructs or the human actors and replace it with a divine one and everything will be fine.

Ad Break  

Pete  

You know, as you’re explaining these things, Steed, what comes to my mind is Walter Brueggemann and his, what I think is a wonderful book “The Prophetic Imagination,” where he says that Israel became empire by having a monarchy. David was okay. He wasn’t really a king. He was sort of a bandleader and he conquered some lands and sort of got some organization. But Solomon was the first true monarch, the first true king with an administration, with taxes, which receives a rather blistering prophetic critique in 1 Samuel. What are your thoughts on that? Do you agree with Brueggemann that there is this, the failure of empire seems to be a dominant theme, at least maybe in the Deuteronomistic history and some of the prophetic books?

Steed  

Oh, I think there’s some merit in understanding that particular critique. And I find the debates within the Deuteronomistic History—those books from Samuel through Kings, and even if you could go back and you could include Judges there—around monarchy to be key. Because I think the debates on the conversations around the monarchy in those books are a mirror to how the writers and people at the time are thinking and trying to make their way through these ideas around empire. And the monarchy becomes a kind of a stand-in. I think there are still some debates as to how much, say, someone like Solomon or even Josiah is critiqued for the kinds of extractive and expansive policies that they have. And certainly, there’s a big movement between David and Solomon in terms of how the infrastructure of the monarchy now becomes a tool of extraction from the people, and Solomon’s method and administrative structure mirroring much of what existed in imperial states like Assyria at the time. So you have the sense of pretentions to empire, to try to acquire more, to get more, and creating a very structured society where you have some people who are at the bottom trying to support this huge infrastructure. And so yes, you get that kind of a prophetic critique, and that strain of prophetic critique against those kinds of excesses that have emerged from time to time. And in some sense, it’s anti-monarchical, and becomes a template for us to see what’s happening outside in terms of the relationship with the existing empires.

Jared  

So there’s a sense in which it’s pro-monarchy in the Hebrew Bible, and there’s diverse voices here. And then there’s this voice that’s critiquing monarchy, and we weave this, you know, throughout the Hebrew Bible. But specifically talking about this postcolonial lens, which I think may be new for people in terms of how to read the Bible through that lens. Can we focus on the specific texts? And I’m thinking here of Jeremiah. Can you just kind of walk us through, what’s a way in which Jeremiah can be read that brings in this postcolonial perspective?

Steed  

Jeremiah can be frustrating, a frustrating book to try to determine from the narratives that we have. Say, how is this prophet predisposed to looking and thinking about empire? So here’s one of the things that we would see in the book of Jeremiah. It’s a fairly sanguine approach that says, “Look, the Babylonians are coming.” And the voice of the prophetic texts, the dominant voice in the prophetic text says, “Submit to Babylon and live.” You see this somewhere in chapter 24, because there were persons who were thinking, “No, that’s kind of not what we do. We need to fight, we need to push against the Babylonians.” But the divine command was to submit and live. And by submitting and live was not to stay in Jerusalem, but to be deported to Babylon. 

And part of the postcolonial concern then is how do you read forced migration? Because essentially, what’s going to happen for these people from Jerusalem going into Babylon is forced migration. How do you read that alongside of various forms of forced migration that have taken place in the modern world, the 17th, 18th century? How do you read that alongside experiences of enslavement, of people who are not just enslaved in the places they were, but were transported across oceans in order to work to build up the imperial center? So much of the work that one will have to do in reading Jeremiah is to ask, where is the divine voice in this experience? Is the divine voice simply about submission and acquiescence to imperial power? Or is there some way in which people are called into some form of resistance? 

Because the acquiescence in one sense might just well be, “Look, this power is larger and bigger than you, you cannot fight it and resist the force that is going to take you into another place.” But what happens when you get to that place? Do you then fully roll over and do everything they ask you? Well, no. And we will see some of this within Jeremiah itself, where Jeremiah is going to offer the kinds of ways in which you exist within an exilic context, ways in which you thrive, ways in which you assert independence, and you sustain the very heart of your faith and religion. So those are some of the kinds of things one needs to pay attention to. Some of it, of course, is this recognition of what is the modern experience? What are the correlates of the modern experiences that are brought to bear on reading these biblical experiences that we are seeing that can unpack it, and unfold what is happening there?

Pete  

And you alluded to it—and not to put too fine a point on it—but when God is orchestrating the colonization of [Chuckles] of the Judahites, that’s exactly part of the problem. Where do we find the divine voice? Do we read it at face value? Or are we obligated now to, let’s say, dig beneath or around those comments and perhaps recontextualize them for our time? Is that a fair way of putting the dilemma?

Steed  

I think it’s a very fair question. And I mean, to the extent that you have listeners who are preachers and who preach on this, these and other texts, these are the kinds of questions that they would have. I think it’s important to dig beneath it, because in one sense, these biblical texts are our theological texts. They look at the realities that unfolded, and then they ask, “Where is God in this?” or they try to provide theological frames. So the reality is, here’s this superpower called the Babylonian empire, who is raging across the lands, and eventually destroys Jerusalem, decimates it in many ways. That’s the reality. And that’s not a positive story. That’s a story of destruction, that’s a story of loss. Theologically, what our prophetic texts and other biblical texts are doing is to reinterpret that not simply as loss, but ways in which to keep God as a central actor in those movements of history. So it’s this theological way of understanding history and adding meaning to the realities that people were faced with. So you take now what objectively on the historical record is a defeat, and try to make that into ways in which you could encourage people to reorient their lives in order to rehabilitate themselves.

Pete  

Could you walk us through that very process? And the reason I’m asking, Steed, is because on the surface, the divine command that the Babylonians be God’s instrument for punishing the sinful Judah, could be used—and in fact, has been used throughout history—as a justification for God doing that very same sort of thing. You just, the people in power happened to be the Babylonians, [chuckles] the people who aren’t are the people who are being, you know, oppressed by this power. That literal reading is easier. So walk us through the mechanics of how you might look at the theology of Jeremiah, then, maybe with more hope.

Steed  

Yeah. Well, it goes to asking the very fundamental question of: whose side is God on? Because the surface reading shows—right, and this is one of the points I was making earlier—this sense of affinity towards empire. And that surface reading demonstrates, “Wow, God becomes friends with emperors and wicked ones,” right? Nebuchadnezzar, my servant, you know, Cyrus, my anointed. And as an imperial power, it is fairly easy to look at this and say “That Judahite God likes us.” And if you come alongside and say, let’s read these texts from the perspective of imperial power, you’re always going to say, the God of this Bible endorses dominant and oppressive powers to do good things. And we could claim that we have been called up and raised up by this God for this very work, because it’s good work and it is God’s work, regardless of what it is, and regardless of the impact upon the people. There’s always this very high view of reading biblical texts that stand alongside the power that’s on the up. 

If you do a reading from below, of the oppressed people, of the people who now face the consequences—because ultimately, when you do the format that I described, God is not a god that is in affinity with the people on the bottom, but is in affinity with those on the top. But if you replace it and say now God is a God of those who are on the bottom, you get a different outcome. And part of the outcome is that you recognize that the utility of the empire in the hands of God is ultimately for the liberation and freedom of God’s people. And I think those are the kinds of predispositions that we can take, and in some instances, we can see some spaces opening up for what we might think of as kind of a pushback against empire. But it is not, it’s not the surface reading. It takes some digging into it. It takes some asking over and again, and I think it takes some intentional repositioning ourselves as biblical readers to orient the God not as the one who is always aligned with the top and the dominant and the powerful, but with the weak, and those on the bottom. And that I fear is not the way in which we are socialized and schooled into reading the Bible, for a very long time. So instinctively, we want to see God as on the side of the powerful. And it will take us some time to shift those types of policies, those reading practices.

Jared  

And you know, you say “the surface reading,” but even what you’re saying, I’d almost want to reframe that and ask: Whose surface reading? Because there is a time in which if you are a colonized people, as the early writers, and readers of this would have been, their surface reading is from a place of feeling powerless and needing God to be the one who has power. And you can’t shift the historical reality that the Babylonians are coming for us or have taken us into exile. And so there has to be a theological reframing and from that position, it seems that is the surface reading, it’s depending on whose surface we’re talking about.

Steed  

Precisely, you’re correct. And I think it’s, it’s one thing when we have to read oriented to the people who are disempowered, who are writing in a way where they are believing in a god that’s powerful, and a powerful god that’s working in their interests—versus being introduced to the Bible by people who are already powerful, more or less introducing the powerful god that’s already on their side. And the reading practice of “No, you are a disempowered people,” is hardly one that a lot of us experience in our time. And it takes us unlearning those types of reading practices to grasp that it’s a very, very different orientation to say we are going to read this as disempowered people, even though all of the orientations that we have says we are in power, we want to feel as if we’re empowered.

Ad Break  

Jared  

I feel like that’s a tall ask for people because, you know, we talk about we’re meaning making people and we’re trying to make meaning given our own context. And so it, kind of to your point, what are strategies for that very difficult task? Because I do think it’s asking for imagination, it’s asking for people to step out of their context—but even from the beginning, it requires us to see our context as those who are in power, which I don’t know if a lot of people feel on a day-to-day basis or really understand. So what are some practical tools or ways that we can cultivate that imagination?

Steed  

Yes, certainly. I think one of the strongest ways is to acquire a global imagination. It means one thing to read the Bible from the 21st century United States, where it is the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world. So regardless of how people experience their wealth, their riches, etc., you belong to a country, and you’re part of a political enterprise, that has amassed significant power. All of that power will trickle to you and the privileges and the benefits. But that’s the socialization that a lot of people have. That’s the air in which we breathe regardless of where we find ourselves situated. Now, when you start to cultivate a global imagination, that’s when you appreciate the power of what it means to live within the United States and how that shapes the way you see the world and see things within the world. 

And in some instances, it doesn’t need, you don’t even need to think outside of the world. Because given the things that are constantly at work within the US, whether it is questions about immigration, questions about war—because war within the US in the last maybe two centuries has always been something globally, there’s hardly ever been war as practice and enacted within the United States—so you’re talking about war, you’re always talking about something that’s external, you’re talking about the economics of trade, how people are thinking about, say China, vis a vis how they used to think about the Soviet Union. These aren’t things where you have to live or move or travel outside, it’s just this broad global arrangement. And what you have is this, within just how those narratives work politically, is the presumption, “Oh, the US is the dominant state, it’s the dominant power.” So that kind of a global imagination, when you start to capture that and say, “Well, let me think about what that means when I’m reading biblical texts, and in whose interest I’m reading.”

Pete  

Right. Well, you know, just if I may, just an observation here, and I’m thinking, you know, Jared, maybe some listeners for whom this might be a very new thing. Because you talk, Steed, about, with respect to Jeremiah, like digging into that and getting beneath the text, or—if I can use the phrase—going against the grain, right? Reading the text differently from a different perspective. Reading from below, you say. Reading texts to address contemporary real, live, on-the-ground matters, is not a distortion of hermeneutics, of reading biblical texts. That has always been the case. Within the biblical text itself, when you have later authors engaging earlier ones and saying something very different, or in the whole history of Christianity and Judaism. So I just want to say, this is an example of that. That’s what we’re doing here. We’re looking at, how can we engage this text to address a real live ethical issue that people are, I think, becoming more and more aware of, because, maybe because we’re getting that global imagination, and we’re seeing things from a broader perspective. And I’m saying that—I mean, please comment if you’d like—but I’m saying that to try to encourage maybe some of our listeners that we’re doing normal theology right now. That’s what we’re doing.

Steed  

Well, and what you described there is the way within which a text—and a biblical text at that—and the Bible itself, can live and be meaningful in another context. Because here’s what’s at stake: no one is going to embrace a biblical text if it’s a death-dealing text for them, if what you’re reading in it is a denial of your existence, it is a way in which to keep you in a suppressed mode, it’s a way that disempowers you—you don’t want to embrace that meaning. And the fact that people continue to embrace the Bible is because they’ve continued to find ways in which it becomes meaningful and useful in their lives. And how people do that today, in 2023, is not the way they did it in 1823—when I say “the way in which…” it doesn’t have the same set of meanings, and it has a different appeal, and it speaks in very different ways. So yes, that’s the process that continues to keep this a living text, if you want to call it that.

Pete  

And if you’ll indulge me for a second, I’m always reminded here of James Kugel, who was my doctoral advisor, who said that “What makes the Bible the word of God isn’t the words on the page. It’s the interpretation given to the words.” That’s why it continues. That’s why people keep reading it. And if they can’t engage it on that level of, let’s say, their human need, what good is it? 

Steed  

Yeah.

Jared  

Why do you think it is that people have such a resistance to seeing these different perspectives? I think, whenever you guys were talking, it just made me think that if I said this to some people in my life, some family members or others, they would resist the idea that their context affects how they read the Bible. Again, that idea of reading from a different perspective, they would just say, “Well, that’s the wrong way to read it.” Because they have sort of this understanding that reading is simple, and it’s clear, and it’s easy. You just read and that is the meaning of the biblical text. You know, how would you address people who say, “Well, postcolonial, that’s like, why add that adjective to our reading of the Bible? Why don’t we just read it?”

Steed  

Yeah. And I’m glad you could bring us back onto this conversation, because precisely what you’re describing there, are some of the critiques that the postcolonial studies and the postcolonial criticism will have. That once something sets out to say, “Look, this is the one single way that regardless of where you are, who you are, whatever it is, this thing applies.” Those are imperial techniques that are set out to destroy specificity, local diversity, and just bring everything into one heading. And that type of perspective, yes, it prevailed for a very long time. It is the way in which the Bible then took its place within the world and it comes across in the modern world as this single, complete, universally applicable for all times, all places. But those perceptions of the Bible are fairly modern. And what the postcolonial perspective does is to say, “Uh-uh, let’s break that up.” 

I mean, I don’t think it’s unique to postcolonial studies, there are others who are doing this, doing it with the biblical texts. And let’s understand that there are varieties of people, and there are varieties of ways of reading, and there are varieties within which the divine word manifests itself based upon local culture. And that to break and dismantle those kinds of single idea, meaning-making positions is a way to enable all people to thrive within the world. Now, to the extent that you benefit from the one dominant meaning and you have sort of ordered your life around that one single way, you become quite resistant to saying, “Hmm, let’s open this up.” Because there are privileges that you get from that one dominant thing that you’re just not easy and willing to let go. So part of the resistance comes from that and it comes from, in many ways, that being the dominant way things were set up. And those tools and mechanisms are effective tools of empire and imperial functionings. Because the idea is, wherever you go in the empire, you should recognize things, right? The polis was supposed to be replicable in every place, you should have these five or six different pieces and wherever you go you feel at home, nevermind that you could travel from Rome to Egypt, and the food, the culture, the language, all of it was different, you should feel at home.

Pete  

Well, as we bring our time to a close here, Steed, which this has been very fascinating and enlightening. Your vision, you know, for reading the Bible from a postcolonial perspective is one that I think you probably share with many people and that I think you’d like to see shared with more people. So where do we go from here? How can we help achieve a vision that understands the role of empire in the Christian faith and in reading the Bible? How can we get beyond that? What’s your vision for that?

Steed  

If we’re looking at the issues around Christianity, I think there’s a lot more of the histories and histories of biblical interpretations that facilitated modern empire that needs to be unpacked and become available to a number of persons. I think people are not completely aware of the way in which, say, for instance, Spanish imperial conquest and occupation was quite careful to be both a legal and a theological project. And by theological they, you know, there was a sense of “We want to do what it is that God is expecting us” and finding ways within which to authenticate that. There are other ways within which, say, in Protestant empires, they may not have been as careful readers of the Bible, as we would have liked them to because, not that they weren’t careful Bible readers, but the Protestant view was of the separation of church and state in between the Lutherans and the Calvinists, this idea of the two kingdoms, so people’s biblical faith were not part of their policymaking, but people who were, you know, believers and believed that they wanted to do good things in the world, and to change the world for good and, you know, ended up just imposing their ways of how to live upon people. Their ways, their cultures, their ideas, their education, and doing so in an oppressive way. I think, to the extent that we could start to unpack those, we then can identify and figure out a unique role for Christianity in the modern world. Because now I think much of what we have in Christianity is this hankering after power, this melancholia that the church is not as useful and powerful and influential as it used to be. And if we look at it, yes, it was that. But it was oppressive in many ways and it wasn’t helping people. And if we get over that, then we can start to see, okay, biblically, where are the ways in which this movement for good can now occur? Where we can pick up and become part of freedom-loving movements, working alongside of people, those who are on the underside of histories? And I think those would be some of the big and important next steps that we could take.

Pete  

That deserves an Amen. 

Jared  

Yeah, absolutely. 

Steed  

Pete  

Yeah. 

Jared  

Thank you for coming in and just expounding on this, and I think it’s a really good topic to keep learning about because again, I think it’s new for a lot of people and I love that we ended with that vision for a way to move forward. So thanks again, Steed, for coming on. We really appreciate it.

Steed  

Well, thank you. Thanks for having me.

Outro  

Jared  

Well, thanks to everyone who supports the show. If you want to support what we do, there are three ways you can do it. One, if you just want to give a little money, go to www.TheBibleForNormalPeople.com/give.    

Pete  

And if you want to support us and want a community, classes, and other great resources, go to www.TheBibleForNormalPeople.com/join.    

Jared  

And lastly, it always goes a long way if you just wanted to rate the podcast, leave a review, and tell others about our show. In addition, you can let us know what you thought about the episode by emailing us at info@TheBibleForNormalPeople.com. 

Outro  

You’ve just made it through another episode of the Bible for Normal People! Don’t forget, you can also catch the latest episode of our other show, Faith for Normal People, wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was brought to you by the Bible for Normal People podcast team: Brittany Prescott, Savannah Locke, Natalie Weyand, Stephen Henning, Tessa Stultz, Haley Warren, and Jessica Shao.   

Jared  

Well, let’s- E- E- E- Well- Eugh. Let me try to rephrase that. Oh my gosh.

Pete  

Jared  

I was trying to go two different directions at the same time and I ended up going no directions. Um…

Pete