Sexual Politics of Esther: Harem

'He’s the king, of course he has a sleepless night. He’s got a lot of responsibility, hundreds of women that he’s married.'

I'm not entirely sure why the thousands of women should give him sleepless night's he has clearly no concern for them. Similarly his responsibilities didn't prevent him from having a six month party.

Harems are a sickening manifestation of women as property. Xerxes may well have worried about any number of people making political moves or assassination attempts, but somehow I can't imagine he ever worried about rebellion from the women he had locked away - they were far too powerless.

Anyway that's not the point of this post. 

For a brief moment I'm going to agree with MD. He made a very good point that we must not be too quick to judge Xerxes. As we are all capable of and do act in similarly indulgent and oppressive ways. The only difference is the level of power he exerts. 

I have always had a problem with the phrase 'power corrupts' - it lets people off too easily and there are demonstrable people through history with significant power who used it for good. But people with great power if they choose to, inflict more harm on a greater number of people. 

MD also made the excellent point that there are many people with harems today only they keep them on their hard drive. You can find my rants about porn here. People, we need to stop seeing porn as primarily an issue of personal purity and start seeing it as a justice issue and an issue of sexist, degrading, dehumanising abuse.

But there's another kind of harem that occurs in churches. You know the classic male leader, female church members running around doing everything. In his book 'The Resignation of Eve' Jim Henderson imagines what it would be like if all the women in church went on strike one weekend. It's a question worth contemplating.

And in many complementarian churches the language used about women in the congregation implies a level of ownership, certainly their behavior is constantly policed. Joining together repeatedly the word's women and children, calling women Ladies, constantly talking about single women as not yet married. All of these repeated little words and phrases adding together to create a situation where a large group of women jump when the male leader says to. 

We are all capable of and guilty of treating others as property. Using people for our own ends, without acknowledging their equality and common humanity. We develop instead transactional relationships that are often fairly one sided. We all do it on a daily basis even if its just not bothering to smile back at the cashier last time you got your groceries. People can become functions to serve us. Christs example is that we become a servant of all and if we were all trying to pursue this, harem would become impossible.

Politics of Esther: Mental Health

I have a dear friend with whom I like to discus the "mental health" of the old testament prophets. Where they around today I'm sure many of them would have received a diagnosis and been put on medication. (Please hear me right I am not saying there is not a time and a place for these things)

As it was they were written of by most of their contemporaries. When you read their stories however you have to ask - who were the mentally unhealthy? I mean if you look round the world and see vast amounts of injustice and oppression and don't get horribly miserable can you really claim to be mentally healthy.

With all this precedent in our holy scripture, with God so clearly using people who think differently how come the church gets it so wrong on mental health all the time? 

My experience is that Christians while quiet happy to go to a secular doctor and get prescribed antibiotics often break into cold sweats at suggestions of seeking medical advice and support in relation to mental well-being. Only Christian counselors will do all of a sudden. And because we are Christian's with a direct line to heaven we are also convinced that we are better able to diagnosis a fellow believers problems and suggest appropriate remedies than most trained professionals.

In all our discussions about the prophets my friend and I never got on to Haman. MD did:

"When his idol is fed he is so happy, when his idol is threatened he is so violent, someone in our culture would be diagnosed bipolar - sometimes they're idolatrous"

This is not OK on so many levels. Equating being bipolar with violence feeds an inaccurate and damaging prejudice. Equating being bipolar with idolatry essentially blames individuals for their own suffering.

Let's rather speak up about the violence and prejudice those with mental health concerns face, show Christ like compassion and empathy in our speaking and praying and lets give space to learn from them how to change our practice.

Useful resource: http://www.time-to-change.org.uk/churches

Sexual Politics of Esther: Wives

Oh Wives, wives. Why don't you get it? It's very simple really. Don't be assertive, but don't be passive. Say what you think but never disagree with your master. Live powerless yet be responsible.

The discussion on the role of wives in complementarian discourses confuse me especially when they start disusing how wives should 'conduct themselves'. Usually a very one sided conversation. As the bellow aptly illustrates:

“Then Queen Esther answered.” And I want you to see how respectful she is. Yes or no, her husband is respectable? No. No. Yes or no, Esther is respectful? Yes. The Bible’s going to talk a lot about wives respecting their husbands. Men, we can always gives our wives a shortcut by being respectable, but here, she’s going to respect a man who is not respectable. And God encourages wives to conduct themselves in this way, not so that they will be without power, but so they will be with power. (Emphasis mine)I don't know what his definition of a lot is I think you could say the bible talks a lot about poverty, injustice, salvation, the Sabbath for example but the two or three verses about wives the translations of which are controversial in thousands of pages I don't count as a lot.

Does God encourage manipulative behaviour? Because it seems to me that many complementarian pastors teach manipulation. They are always giving wives advice about how to 'talk' to their husbands and the advise is often about how they can get their way, not that they'd notice that. With this paradigm of the subservient yet intelligent and somehow commanding wife the story of Esther does indeed suggest that such respectful behavior is somehow God ordained and honored by God.


But this seems to completely ignore the fact that Esther has very little choice available to her. It also ignores Jesus's teaching on subversive submission - not something he suggested in situations of God honoring relationships but a form of non-violent resistance to transform situations of injustice and usher in God's Shalom. (As I've written about here)

Interestingly despite declaring that Vashti did the right thing. MD doesn't seem to spend much time exploring the princes response about other women seeing the example of the queen and likewise no longer submitting to their husbands. Apart from to tell women three times in one sermon that the bible tells women to obey their husbands - which it categorically does not. Not even the most litteralist reading could find that sentence. 

At the same time however women are told 'If your husband’s asking you to disobey the Lord, he’s not the highest authority.' So the big challenge for wives is when to obey their husbands and when to obey their Lord. I have blogged elsewhere about the internal logical errors of complementarians. But this sentence illustrates it beautifully. My God has, as far as I am concerned. an interest and an opinion about every aspect of my life. So if I where to apply the above sentence to my life I would obey my husband when he is in line with God's opinion only, which actually renders my husbands opinion fairly meaningless. Instead acknowledging our shared human condition and limitations we discus situations together and often with friends and family and collectively seek to discern the mind of Christ (like the good baptists we are).

The complementarian reading of Esther misses the powerful contrast between the oppressive relationship between the king of the largest empire in the world at the time and an orphaned young women from an ethnic minority and that same young women's mutually supportive and cooperative relationship with her cousin. 

With all this adoration of the position of wife who then do we deal with women who are not married? Since we are protestant low church we can't pack them off to the nunnery. We have to ask the question:

Is it possible to be a single woman, is it possible to be a divorced woman, is it possible to be a woman who comes from difficult circumstances, is it possible to be an infertile woman who grows in relationship with the Lord and is used in a significant way? Absolutely. That’s the encouraging story of Esther. That’s the massively encouraging story of Esther... Esther’s marriage is never great. We don’t see her with a converted, happy husband holding a baby, but we see her walking with God and doing much good. Amen? It’s a great encouragement for us all, but particularly for you sisters in Christ.

I find it revolting that it was felt that this needs to be said and of all the life circumstances that could beset women not being married and not having kids are presented as the gravest tragedy. So ruinous of women in fact that we even need to question their salvation (because asking if they can be used by God, is just that).

Oh it is all so depressing - So glad the bible has something different to say!

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. 

Sexual politics of Esther: Kids Church

Which bible stories we do and don't think are appropriate for children would be a fascinating subject for a PhD. Here are just some brief musings that resulted from me waking up one Sunday morning and scrabbling around in a caffeine deprived haze trying to work out what I was meant to be doing for kids church and discovering, two weeks after preaching it to the 'grown-wrongs' it was Esther. 

Hmm...do I focus on the sexual violence or the genocide? Jael and the tent peg suddenly feel's like a breeze, though oddly I've never come across resources for teaching that. A few google searches however and it was very apparent that Esther is seen as a highly appropriate story to miss-tell children. 

My googeling informed me that the key messages for children from the book of Esther are:



Godly women have proportionally very tiny wastes. 


Godly women need to try and become 'queens'. Which can be a bit like navigating through a maze. Particularly as you must simultaneously be passive but also take full responsibility for not only your own but all men's behavior. 



The most important and significant thing that happened to Esther was that she became queen. 



Look you can even get an Esther Doll and you can look like her too!

And of course my least favorite (and I know this wasn't developed for children but there is no such thing as children's media all media is children's media if they are going to see it).

I'm relatively broad shouldered and they would have to be twice as wide to fit these proportions.

Esther seems to be fulfilling the role of both Barbie and sleeping beauty, normalising sexual violence and instilling body dysmorphia in all our girls. 

The emperor is wearing no clothes and these images are grotesque and should be banished from our churches. Let's stop feeding our children rat poison. 

Sexual Politics of Esther: Rape

Sigh.

I am depressed that it appears that sections of the church don't understand what consent is. Especially as the notion of free will and free choice is central to our understanding of who God is. This is the main reason it has taken me 3 weeks to write this post.

There is a lot of sexual violence in the old testament. And as was said the bible does talk about it plainly. But we do not see plainly, we see through a glass darkly and our perception is coloured by our underlying assumptions and our circumstance. So yes there are incidences in the bible where rapists use physical force like in the rape of Dinah. We see these as sexual violence because they fit with our narrative of rape not because that is the bibles narrative of rape.

So the word rape is not used to describe Esther's encounter with Xerxes and indeed all the other women who where 'brought' and 'put' in the harem. I don't think I am reading loads into the text if I conclude that they didn't do this voluntarily. They didn't 'come' to the palace. 

It may not have been called rape by the person who penned the book of Esther but it is clearly not consensual which therefore makes it rape. 

Is maybe the problem people have with Esther is the book does not define her as a victim? She doesn't get rescued, she's not pitiful and pathetic so she doesn't fit our perception of how someone who has been raped behaves.

So we are left with a problem in order to cast this as consensual we have to either construct a loving relationship between Esther and Xerxes as many have done, or cast Esther as 'totally up for it'. 

There is so much sexual violence in Esther, from Vashti to the eunuchs to the harem to Esther. It is very clear to those who will see it. Esther is not the only place where sexual violence is reported by the bible but not read by many Christians. David did not commit adultery with Bathsheba he raped her. But Esther should be able to operate as a piece of consciousness raising literature.

It is true it talks very little Esther's motivations or feelings. There is much about her we do not know. But why should that matter. In its almost pantomime like way the book holds the kierarchy of the world up to display and gives a very clear account of what happened and clearly in this patriarchal world there is a lot of sexual violence.

Whether Esther was a godly woman at this point to me is irrelevant. Even asking this question is problematic. Especially when we were told in sermon 1 that there aren't good people and bad people there's people and Jesus. 

Esther was raped because she did not have the freedom to consent. Saying this is not the case and then explaining why she was not 100% godly implies (whether meant or not) that its not real rape unless the women is a picture of femininity. It is essentially the same as saying - but look her facebook has loads of pictures of her in short skirts and she once had sex with some guy  I know. 

If we're honest Esther just doesn't fit our princess narratives she explodes them and we have to deal with that. Esther was raped and Sleeping Beauty and snow white where sexually assaulted.

Sexual Politics of Esther: Fatherhood

"How many of you dad's read this story with me and freak out?" 

"If your single you don't understand women"

I hadn't originally planned for this blog. But there was too much problematic stuff about what it means to be a parent last Sunday. I almost don't know where to start. 

I've always found it fascinating that Mordachi is so widely believed to be Esther's uncle. Go check out the passage. He's Esther's cousin, not that it matters that much he is clearly her adoptive parent. I just wonder where and why the misconception arouse and does it have anything to do with the need to fit Mordachi and Esther into a 'father leader'/'obedient daughter' model. There was a great piece about the mutuality in the relationship between Mordachi and Esther here at CBE. 

I wanted to avoid commenting too directly on the content of what Mark Driscoll said in his preaching series but I think on this subject it is unavoidable. The problem I have with a lot of his rhetoric is that he tells people how they should feel and leaves no room in his construct for a diversity of life experience and emotional response. He very directly told single men that they would have no ability to understand what was problematic about young women being gathered into a hareem only Dad's could possibly understand. So single men are incapable of empathy or sexual integrity. 

Dad's however are capable of and overflowing with murderous rage. Anger the only other emotion men are allowed to feel besides lust in these 'masculinity' constructs, is how fathers will respond, no complexity of emotion allowed just plain rage. And Fathers only - mothers are not mentioned at all despite the biblical text comparing God's protective love to that of a mother bear.

And the rage is not a response to violence and oppression of a dearly loved human being - but an anger at another man taking what belongs to you. As demonstrated by Mr Driscoll's possessive advice about what men should do if their daughters are dating men they don't like. They apparently have the right to dump them. All the while no mention of mothers or sons. 

Mordachi should have just plain said no. Now while I don't disagree that it would be great if the people of Persia as individuals or a collective had resisted this oppression, I also assume that Mordachi didn't or perceived he didn't have a choice. But this doesn't fit Driscoll's paradigm of what it means to be a man, nor does it fit his agenda of policing men's behavior and sense of identity. 

He appeals to the case of Adam our 'first father' (is he ever referenced as such in the bible?) who's sin was apparently a sin of omission, that he did nothing (funny I thought he took and ate!) in the same way he argues Mordachi didn't prevent Esther from going to the palace and failed as a father.

Through the whole thing he set up a paradigm of women as the property of men, particularly their fathers. It is the model of the punitive, controlling father rather than what I believe to be far more biblical: the nurturing parent.

While he's berating Xerxes for acting as god he wants fathers to extract complete obedience from their families. 

Coming soon: Sexual Politics of Esther: Sexual violence

Sexual Politics of Esther: Vashti

Can I suggest that 'Did Vashti do the right thing?' is not the relevant question. But it is a question that exposes the inconsistencies and internal errors of complementarianism. 

Is Vashti a rebellious and stubborn woman who should have submitted to her husband? Is she a heroic 'lady' who judges correctly when to disobey her husband.

Vashti throws up a problem for a patriarchal view of the world because while women are devoid of any autonomy, authority or power they are also held accountable for the behaviors of men, and there is an internal contradiction there. 

There has been a lot of comment on twitter about some of the mental gymnastics complementarians have to go through to match their practices with their theology. In the first sermon from Mars hill on Esther we were informed that the best commentary on Esther was written by a women. I struggle to understand how it is OK for her to write and a man to read this book when it would not be OK for her to speak the exact same words from a platform - or maybe it would if it were a 'lecture'.

One of the difficulties I have with the presentation of Esther we are currently getting is the need to enforce 'the prayer of salvation' on it. I prefer to read the book of Esther as first and foremost a history book rather than a gospel narrative. This way I can start from the place that Vashti did what she did and in her story seek what can I learn about the world and my God. 

So while as an egalitarian I don't need to ask if Vashti did the right thing complementarians are forced to ask. I have to say what was said last Sunday was not what I was expecting but it was still used as an argument to police women's behavior. 

The obey your husband - unless he's asking you to sin, as I have argued elsewhere, necessitates a very narrow view of sin, essentially restricting it to the ten commandments, as opposed to any situation in which you follow your own or someone else will other than God. (We were told 3 times women are instructed to obey their husbands despite it never ever ever saying that in scripture, even with the most literal view)

Informing women that they must say no to there husbands if he's leading them into sin, while simultaneously requiring them to have no language of no leaves them in a very anxious place. Whether Complementarians decide Vashti did the right thing or the wrong thing is kinda irrelevant because the interpretation still requires wives to figure out how to relate to their husbands rather than how to relate to God. 

So women if your husband pressurises you into wearing 'revealing clothing' or if you in any way give into any of their coercive behavior, it is entirely your fault for not sufficiently being the guardians of men's behavior. Oh but they are still in charge.

Vashti was put in a situation where she had to face potential sexual violence or defy the most powerful man in the world. I do not consider this free choice and consequently am more concerned about analysing the behaviors of those that put her in that situation than hers. 

Oh and we were also briefly informed that Xerxes shouldn't have been attempting to publicly shame his wife sexually.... interesting. 

Sexual Politics of Esther: Xerxes

Xerxes was a powerful (in the power over sense) king. He held a big party to display his power and wealth. If your struggling to get how big and powerful he was you could listen to this .

Xerxes was not the eldest son of his father Darius I. He was the first son Darius had as king, rather than as subject and was the son, not of a 'commoner' as his eldest brother was, but of the daughter of Cyrus the great. His eldest brother did try to claim the throne but to no avail.

The problem of inherited power is not its arbetariness, because actually its not arbitary, the problem is with the very idea of the kind of power over that exists in a patriarchal system. Even if Xerxes had been elected to this sort of power it would be no better. It is easy to look back (or arround) at non democratic forms of governance and see the only problem as lack of democracy and not see the corruption and empire within our own system.

Sorry that was a bit of a detour. 

Even in the politics of Xerxes becoming king women are defined in terms of their relationship with men. Xerxes gets the thrown not because of who his mother was but because of who her father was and the political marriage of her and her husband. Needless to say if she had had only daughters there would have been no queen of Persia.

Xerxes I would not describe as a man with power (I wish English had two separate words) as Jesus was. Xerxes was a man who had power over many people, which is a transitory oppressive power which ultimately is overcome in Jesus. 

Xerxes as king also serves as a pattern of power and how he uses it will dictate the dominant understandings of power and relationships. He is the one who can maintain or alter the status quo. So that when Vashti refuses to come it has implications not just for the king but all his subjects. Though the text only says 'For the queen’s conduct will ^[g]become known to all the women causing them ^[h]to look with contempt on their husbands by saying, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought in to his presence, but she did not come.' I think it is safe to assume that the king would have felt, not only his position as king, but also his very maleness where being brought into question. Through the rest of the story we know there are those looking for opportunity to assassinate Xerxes if all the women of the kingdom rebeled it wouldn't be long before Xerxes was off his thrown.

Xerxes knows this, he can't afford for anyone - let alone a woman challenge his authority. Women are not his equal's, they are not even his possessions, they are his slaves. 

Sexual Politics of Esther: Eunuchs

Sexual Violence is never funny. Never ever not ever. 

I was listening to Esther while doing the washing up ears all pricked to listen to the detail of Vashti's story when the word Eunuch suddenly hit me between the eye's and my stomach turned  as the full horror of that word settled. 

According to Wikapedia 'Castration was typically carried out on the soon-to-be eunuch without his consent in order that he might perform a specific social function; this was common in many societies.' So it is totally inappropriate to describe men as going to their mums and saying 'hey I got a job' or to describe their mum's reaction as disappointment because of lack of grandchildren.

Not only is castration an act of sexual violence but it is violence against children since it is performed on pre-pubescent. It is a grotesque  practise. And it just plain isn't funny. 

There are twelve eunucs named in the book of Esther. Twelve little boys who were grosley violated: Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar, Carkas Hegai, Shaashgaz, Hathach, Bigthana and Teresh.

I'm not one for reading loads into numbers in the bible but I do find it interesting that there are 12 named. 

These boys who grew up into men are not non-people. They are not as they where described last sunday 'men who used to have good lives' - they are men who live lives and it is for them to define whether they are good or not. The abuse they experienced did not stop them being human, one of the reasons I think the bible chooses to name them, while not bothering to name the 'princes'. 

Among the Achamenide Persians, of which Xerxes was one, political eunuchism was an established institution. Apparently a Eunuch was assumed to have less ties to the military and family and not be interested in establishing their own dynasty so could be trusted to give good advice and loyal service and could hold positions of significant "power".

Though clearly not the power of self determination, if they had a power to influence the king, they had it in the context of a loss of personal freedom, since they where essentially enslaved.  

The Eunucs are mentioned 11 times in the book of Esther. Esthers relationship to the Eunucs shifts dramatically between chapter 2 and 4. In chapter 2 the Eunuchs are described as being 'in charge' of 'the kings women' but by chapter 4 they are being described as 'her Eunuchs'. In most other verses they are described as the king's  so Esther's transition to Queen gives her derived power over the Eunics though I imagine it would be shaky and dependent on continued favour with the king.

Anyway the Eunuchs are in most places described as belonging to someone. They have become possessions. Eunuchs I guess where the ancient worlds answer to the question who will guard the women? It cannot be women because we cannot give them authority or power, nor can it be men because we cannot trust them not to be craving our own position of power and influence, and we cannot trust them not to rape and pillage, and any offspring must be ours. 

So we will violate a man so that he is able to serve our purposes because he is now a non-person and no longer a threat. 

Interestingly Xerxes assassination was assisted by a Eunuch - and we read about an attempt in the book of Esther also.

Not all men do that well in patriarchy.

There is so much stuff about masculinities floating around the Christian world, it breaks my heart to see gender non-conforming men being silenced as not Christian or "real men" because they don't like mountain climbing or whatever other way people have decided men NEED to demonstrate their masculinity. The kingdom of heaven turns everything on it's head. 

Isaiah 54:4-5 says:

For thus says the Lord,

“To the eunuchs who ^(C)keep My sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And ^(D)hold fast My covenant,
 To them I will give in My ^(E)house and within My ^(F)walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give ^[a]them an everlasting ^(G)name which ^(H)will not be cut off.

Sexual Violence is never ok. And the fact that we find it funny, and don't even see it as violence when the victims of the crime are men is deeply disturbing and evidence of the ubiquitous patriarchy that surrounds us.

Esther 1:1-9: The Banquets of the King

Esther 1:1-9

1 Now it took place in the days of Ahasuerus, the Ahasuerus who reigned from India to ^[a]Ethiopia over 127 provinces, ² in those days as King Ahasuerus sat on his royal throne which was at the citadel in Susa, ³ in the third year of his reign he gave a banquet for all his princes and attendants, the army officers of Persia and Media, the nobles and the princes of his provinces being in his presence. ^4 [b]And he displayed the riches of his royal glory and the splendor of his great majesty for many days, 180 days.

⁵ When these days were completed, the king gave a banquet lasting seven days for all the people who were present at the citadel in Susa, from the greatest to the least, in the court of the garden of the king’s palace. ⁶ There were hangings of fine white and violet linen held by cords of fine purple linen on silver rings and marble columns, and couches of gold and silver on a mosaic pavement of porphyry, marble, mother-of-pearl and precious stones. ⁷ Drinks were served in golden vessels of various kinds, and the royal wine was plentiful according to the king’s ^[c]bounty. ⁸ The drinking was done according to the law, there was no compulsion, for so the king had given orders to each official of his household that he should do according to the desires of each person. ⁹ Queen Vashti also gave a banquet for the women in the ^[d]palace which belonged to King Ahasuerus.

I dread to think what the rates of liver sclerosis were at the end of all this. Perhaps a kind doctor could let us know what the likely health consequences of drinking for 6 months would be? 

Many people have said that the book of Esther reads like a pantomime or drama. It certainly has a theatrical oppening; a big powerful king having a big and I suspect political party. I don't think there is much else to say on these verses. 

Esther: Some thoughts before the storm

I am off to Germany tomorrow for exciting family celebrations so won't be able to respond to the first in the upcoming series on Esther, but will do on my return. Part of me is still shocked and sickened by what is coming but also I am getting very very excited about all the amazing stuff that's going to come out of this.

I was listening to Roger Forster on Esther the other day. He seemed to think the main message was about God in working all things. I laughed out loud at the irony - tones of egalitarians are going to be studying and writing about Esther in the next few weeks - what amazing resources will be produced. And while 1 man has many followers we are a very large collective of people and we are not fighting each other to get to the top but working together, which is much more powerful. 

I am planning roughly, though may be a day or two out, to post a response to preaches on Monday's as well as doing several character studies along the way, exploring the  sexual politics of the book. I will be tweeting using the hashtag #Esther 

Am also going to link all posts on a page and would love to link to other people's posts so if you have one either leave me a comment or let me know on twitter @JenniferParnham.

LET THE FUN BEGIN - SO EXCITED THIS IS GOING TO BE FUN!