Sexual Politics of Esther: Men

'Men, we’re leaders. The decisions we make, they implicate our wives, our children, our grandchildren.'

In discourses about the bible in general and in Esther in particular (and ok I'll be honest a specific sermon series everyone else is probably well over but I'm a little behind with) Christians can become slightly preoccupied with who is leading, how they are leading and if they are doing a good job?

Is it just me who wonders when we stopped talking about discipleship and became obsessed with leadership. 

Anyway one of the angles of this preoccupation in certain corners of the church is the genderd nature of the leadership. Many readings of Esther have Mordachi as the ultimate leader and while they may acknowledge Esther's leadership in some way they will make very clear that she does this within the boundaries of 'acceptable' female and wifely behavior  Because Men must be leaders - this is foundational to the very cosmos. Women may be tempted to 'step up' if their men are cowards but terrible things will happen if they do.

Men must not be scared or in any way gifted for anything other than leadership they must be in control of somebody or they are not really men. 'It doesn't mean that they’re smarter, or more gifted, or more talented. What it does mean is that they are dominant for good or evil.' 

I just think Jesus was more transformative than that. The problem with Xerxes kingdom was not that the people in it were using their power abusively, the problem was individuals having that kind of power over other people full stop. If the incarnation teach's us anything about power it's that it should not be grasped. If men for whatever reason find themselves in positions of power then they need to give it up by emptying themselves out for others. Not rule wisely over people - their is nothing transformative about that. 

In our toilet we have a sign that says: 'Jesus is the head of this household and he doesn't wear the trousers, he wore a floaty robe and open toed sandals'. I put it up in response to somebody declaring that he concluded 'from all this, that Christianity should have a masculine feel'. 

How is the idolatry in that sentence not blindingly obvious? Leaving aside my misgivings about whether masculinity is a biblical concept to start with. Surely, surely masculinity should have a Christlike feel. And if it did what would it look like? 

The turning the other cheek, cooking, cleaning, serving, loving, forgiving, challenging Jesus. The Jesus who was happy to be financed by women, talk to women, teach women, entrust them with the news of the resurrection all as a man. 

It's no wonder the church gets so defensive, preoccupied and neurotic about asserting 'correct gender roles' - it's not the challenge from the outside, its the challenge from the very center of who we claim to be, its the challenge from Jesus that the argument is against.