Zach’s lenses are a gift for folks stuck in fear-based readings, no doubt. But here’s the rub. The Bible itself didn’t fall from heaven. It was curated by empire men who built a canon to reinforce power, patriarchy, and eventually Christian nationalism. Trying to make that collection inclusive is a noble project, but it risks feeling like when people try to rebrand the Confederate flag as ‘heritage not hate.’ You can remix the lenses, but the frame itself was built by empire. At the end of the day this Bible represents the Christian Nationalist winners who destroyed inclusive, women-led churches.
Thanks for chiming in, Monk Boy! As always, your comments are well thought out and add great depth. I agree with part of what you're saying here, but I think where I'd push back a bit is in (what strikes me as) your over reduction of the Bible being "curated by empire men who built a canon to reinforce power, patriarchy, and eventually C.N." I guess for me, I'm not prepared to eliminate the possibilities that the people working to choose the canon ALSO had good, noble, and earnest intentions. I'm not saying there might not have been SOME of what you mention, but I don't believe it was purely that (or even mostly).
I get what you’re saying, Colby. But I have to wonder if you’ve really sat with the polemics of the proto-orthodox writers. Read Irenaeus or Tertullian and you’ll see the tone isn’t “noble intention.” It’s scorched earth. They branded rival communities as demonic, twisted their teachings, and worked tirelessly to crush them. By the time of Athanasius, the playbook was demonize and exile your opponents, not just reason with them.
I’m not denying that some of these men believed they were defending the faith. But the historical record is clear. The canon didn’t emerge from mostly noble intentions. It came out of centuries of ruthless boundary-setting that silenced women, erased mystical voices, and hitched the church to empire.
Zach’s lenses are a gift for folks stuck in fear-based readings, no doubt. But here’s the rub. The Bible itself didn’t fall from heaven. It was curated by empire men who built a canon to reinforce power, patriarchy, and eventually Christian nationalism. Trying to make that collection inclusive is a noble project, but it risks feeling like when people try to rebrand the Confederate flag as ‘heritage not hate.’ You can remix the lenses, but the frame itself was built by empire. At the end of the day this Bible represents the Christian Nationalist winners who destroyed inclusive, women-led churches.
Thanks for chiming in, Monk Boy! As always, your comments are well thought out and add great depth. I agree with part of what you're saying here, but I think where I'd push back a bit is in (what strikes me as) your over reduction of the Bible being "curated by empire men who built a canon to reinforce power, patriarchy, and eventually C.N." I guess for me, I'm not prepared to eliminate the possibilities that the people working to choose the canon ALSO had good, noble, and earnest intentions. I'm not saying there might not have been SOME of what you mention, but I don't believe it was purely that (or even mostly).
I get what you’re saying, Colby. But I have to wonder if you’ve really sat with the polemics of the proto-orthodox writers. Read Irenaeus or Tertullian and you’ll see the tone isn’t “noble intention.” It’s scorched earth. They branded rival communities as demonic, twisted their teachings, and worked tirelessly to crush them. By the time of Athanasius, the playbook was demonize and exile your opponents, not just reason with them.
I’m not denying that some of these men believed they were defending the faith. But the historical record is clear. The canon didn’t emerge from mostly noble intentions. It came out of centuries of ruthless boundary-setting that silenced women, erased mystical voices, and hitched the church to empire.