Hands are for... Proverbs 31:19-20

In her hand she holds the the distaff

and grasps the spindle with her fingers

She opens her arms to the poor

and extends her hand to the needy

Whack! and one child has hit the other yet again. Time out's ensue and then I restate that hands are not for hitting and I ask what are hand's for? We come up with a well rehersed and ever longer list. Hands are for stroking, hugging, eating, making, drawing, cleaning, washing, helping, sharing etc.

I think a lot about what we do with our hands. Hands can function as a really powerful image of our humanity. Just as our tongs can build up or destroy our choice of what to do with our hands is often about building up or knocking down. 

We lose something of the poetry in our translations. My commentary would suggest the Hebrew is structured in a way so that the woman's hands are the central image.

Her hands she extends to the doubling spindle,

            Her palms grasp the spindle.

            Her palm spreads out to the poor,

Her hands she extends to the needy.

So her economic productivity benefits not only her but the wider community. She is not content to ensure the security of her own family but seeks to extend the benefit of her security to those for whatever reason are not able to provide for themselves. 

Jesus said that we will always have the poor with us. The question then is how do we respond if we find our self in a place of material security? Do we build fences, shore up, pursue profit for profits sake, do we look for who to blame for poverty? Or like this women do we simply extend our hands in love and generous humility?

Hands are not for hitting they are for so much good. What are we doing with our hands today?

A Mothers perspective on the cross

I wrote this a couple of years ago and the wonderful @God_Loves_Women posted it for me on her blog. Anyway feeling emotionally able to post it here now and since its recently been child loss day I thought I'd put it up. Hoping it helps some.



Ever heard a preach on the Father heart of God? Ever heard a father preaching about how horific it would be for him to loss his son.  Probably. Ever heard a mother preach about child loss? I suspect if you have it will have been less often.

I find it hard to spend any length of time in worship at present without experiencing substantial amounts of pain. God is gracious and let's me run away and run back and slowly I grieve.

God chooses to reveal himself in scripture in both terms of father and mother imagery. So here is a mothers perspective on the cross.

I had a child wrenched from my womb, I watched as I lost all ability to nurture, care and grow this precious being, watched it poor out of me. I lost the possibility of holding that child to my breast, to nurse it with its ear next to my heartbeat to stare into its face and see my own emotions mirrored back. I lost the oppertunity to suuround them with love, joy and goodness.

I had nothing to hold or bury so vast was the seperation raught between us so I buried a box of memories in a garden I will never walk with my child in. But I have hope. God gave me a picture of the future and when I get to glory there's a child waiting ready to run towards me arms wide open shouting 'mummy'.

Because God's love can reach right down into the depths of this broken world. Right down to a collection of cells that could never have lived, that had the 'wrong' collection of chromosomes that lacked what it took to be a viable human. Yet still God breathes life.

Both my children have taught me so much about the love of God for us. What my unborn Eden has given me is a glimmer of is the cataclismic pain God bears when his children are taken and the eager anticipation with which God longs to be reconciled.

"Men find their value in being strongest. Women find their value in being prettiest."

This is part of a series in which I'll be exploring gender differences suggested by readers. To find out more about the series click here. 

So here we go our first suggested inherent gender difference. 

Is it true of all men and women? 

You can vote as to whether you think it's true just to the left. 

I think this statement is evidently not true of all people. I for one have no need to be prettiest my feeling's about being pretty are summed up in this fabulous poem, the audience reaction to which makes me think I'm not the only one. I know several men who don't seem to communicate any need to be the strongest. 

But let's see what the vote tells us.

Is it true of most women and men?

If this statement was preceded by the phrase 'our current cultural narrative tells us...' I'd be inclined to agree with it. But the fact that this is the dominant story line in our media doesn't mean it is the lived experience of the majority of people. I would be very interested if anyone had any references to research exploring where people find their value. I think generally there has been a shift  in recent history from people finding their value in what they do to finding their value in what they own. (I'm not sure either is great). 

So without a big piece of social research we have no definite answer to this question.

Is it the teaching of scripture?

If indeed this is a genuine pattern in the world is it one created by God or is it one that we should 'not conform to'? Where does the bible say we should find our value? I think for most of us the first answer that comes to mind is 'in Christ'. 

Does the bible instruct women to put their energy into being 'pretty'? I was blogging through a series on Proverbs 31  which I will get round to finishing at some point. So far I haven't found any encouragement towards calorie counting, mirror gazing or face painting. 

1 Peter 3:3-4 and 1 Timothy 2:9-10 Would both suggest that there is active discouragement in scripture for women to pursue 'prettiness'.

What about a quest for strength? Their are certainly many male characters in the bible described as strong, with whole stories surrounding their strength. But was David primarily given as an example of someone strong or was he remembered for for being 'a man after God's own heart'.?

And what about Christ? There was huge expectation on him, we are so often told in sermons, to lead a rebellion and with the use of strength overthrow the occupying forces. He didn't, in fact he did very little in his ministry that required physical strength. 

But I think the biggest issue I have with the statement above is in the little suffix 'est'. What happened to the first being last and the last being first? What happened to the equality of all humans before God? Considering others better than ourselves? What happened to the being one body of different parts? Being 'strongest' or 'prettiest' necessitates competition between us. Sound's more like patriarchy than God's Shalom to me. 

I'd say this is a good example of why it's so important to define what we believe it means to be human before we define what it means to be a man or a woman. 

In summary I am fairly convinced that whether or not this is an experienced reality it is not encouraged by the example of Christ or scripture. As Christians we believe we are children of God that is where we should place our value. We value others equally because they are our neighbor and equally precious. 

Same difference?

So I found myself saying a couple of times recently that I thought the Bible was rather silent on the subject of gender differences. But I have been pondering this, it would be strange if it were true and certainly I have heard gender differences asserted to be biblical many times. So here is my next blog project, to find out if the bible gives any specific instruction or reflection on the nature of 'masculinity' or 'femininity'. And I need your help, particularly if you hold a complementary view of the sexes. 

Here's how this is going to work. If you believe there to be differences in the nature and character of men and women please give those differences one at a time in the comments bellow and feel free to explain your rational if you want. I'll then start a blog for each one with a few of my own thoughts and we can have a discussion about each separately. That might make the conversation more manageable. 

The other thing I wonder is can we do this while leaving aside the question of leadership? - Let's try shall we?

So throw them at me what is the difference between Women and Men?

Jesus the Man

I believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. I believe he showed us who God was, what it means to be children of God and a better vision for the world. I believe he enabled us to be reconciled with God and become agents of change in this fallen world and take part in building Shalom. 

I also believe that he was anatomically 100% male. I find no where in the gospels any teaching or instruction from the mouth of Jesus that implies different expectations of male and female disciples. When he picked up children and put them on his lap, he was 100% male. Not as someone once told me 'in touch with his feminine side' he didn't have one. When he wept, had compassion, washed feet he was 100% anatomically male. 

When he laid down his life for humanity he didn't do it by leading a military uprising. Didn't prepare for it by watching hours of Braveheart. He suffered abuse, shaming and torture from people who toke power over him. I cannot see how testosterone was at all necessary or helpful in that situation.  

As Dworkin said there is a reason feminists haven't taken up arms and it's not the lack of knives in the kitchen. We believe in men Jesus believed in men he believed they were human. My plea to Christian men ask what does it mean to be human and what does it mean to be like Jesus in our humanity get that sorted then ask what does it mean to be a man - though you will probably be side tracked on a mission to bring justice, equality and salvation by then. 

Why was Jesus born in Bethlehem?

I have been asking Twitter why Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I've had a number of replies. hear are a few of them and a few of my own thoughts:

• It was prophesied (this seems to be favorite)
• There was a census
• Joseph and Mary where from the lineage of David
• Mary had just ridden on a donkey along I imagine a bumpy road - if that doesn't induce labor I don't know what will.
• JOSEPH WENT TO PAY HIS TAXES

Just saying. 

So while you do your Christmas shopping remember that the first Christmas happened in Bethlehem because a small entrepreneur went to pay his taxes. I imagine Herod didn't. 

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ 

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: 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. 

Economic Equals: Proverbs 31:16-18

She considers a field and purchases it;

from the fruit of her palms she plants a vinyard.

She girds her loins with strength;

she strengthens her arm for the task

She perceives that her trading is good;

her lamp [of prosterity] does not go out at night.

Till the age of 24 I never lived anywhere more than 3 years and usually moved across the world at least every 8 weeks from the age of 10 to 21.  Moving heavy things was part of my childhood. Which is one of the reasons I find it incredibly grating when people insist on carrying things for me that I am perfectly able to carry (please note I said when they insist not when they offer). Its as if they know my physical limitations better than I do. 

The commentary I have seems to want to suggest that most of the physical work of planting a vinyard would have been done by male slaves. I see no evidence for this in the text. Not that I'm not prepared to say that on average men are physically stronger than women. The problem is that we then polarise men and women and then assume women have no physical strength - which is clearly untrue. 

I recently went to the women at work exhibition at the women's library and was quiet amazed at the incredible weights many women would lift during the course of their labour. it reminded me of my granny's right arm which was phenomenally strong.  

Not only is this women physically strong she is also mental astute, she considers and sees that her trading is good. She also has the mental strength to prosper. And neither her physical or mental strength is interpreted by anyone as a question of her husbands masculinity. It is interesting how in subtle and not so subtle ways women's differing anatomy is not only considered a cause of physical fragility but also of mental fragility. 

You see the problem with these verses is that if we're really honest they just don't allow for not allowing women to be the economic equals of men, which is really what constructing them as physically and mentally fragile is about, keeping them out of economic power. She produces products and trades. 

So I don't think my commentary is justified in describing her economic work as 'cottage industries' as I've said before the whole/home/work split is something thats happened since the industrial revolution, but even without that this is not a women making handicraft in the times between developing a spotless house and spotless children, this is a woman engaged in serious economic work. Oh and who's looking after the kids while she's doing this?

So a proverbs 31 community values women's economic participation and doesn't make them feel like ogres for leaving their kids with other nurturing adults. 

Esther and Jesus

Bellow is my preach on Esther and Jesus (All views my own!). I originally wrote and preached this before deciding that it was really very urgent to write a series of posts on Esther. However it does serve to provide a good introduction to what will follow. 

The relevant passage is: 

Esther 7:1-6

Esther’s Plea

Now the king and Haman came to drink wine with Esther the queen. ² And the king said to Esther on the second day also ^[a]as they drank their wine at the banquet, “^(A)What is your petition, Queen Esther? It shall be granted you. And what is your request? ^(B)Even to half of the kingdom it shall be done.” ³ Then Queen Esther replied, “^(C)If I have found favor in your sight, O king, and if it pleases the king, let my life be given me as my petition, and my people as my request; ⁴ for ^(D)we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, ^(E)to be killed and to be annihilated. Now if we had only been sold as slaves, men and women, I would have remained silent, for the ^[b]trouble would not be commensurate with the ^[c]annoyance to the king.” ⁵ Then King Ahasuerus ^[d]asked Queen Esther, “Who is he, and where is he, ^[e]who would presume to do thus?” ⁶ Esther said, “^(F)A foe and an enemy is this wicked Haman!” Then Haman became terrified before the king and queen.

Here's the audio:

Esther and Jesus

Here's the text:

Are we sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin. Once upon a time there was a little girl called Anna. Anna was a philosopher, theologian, mathematician, lover of life and of people. Anna decided that everyone was born with bits of glass they got into the habit of slipping over their inner eye - the pieces of glasse said things like good bad nasty etc.

Dear Mr God this is Anna was given to me when I was 14 – it changed my life eternally. Thus is the power of narrative and story. As Merida says in Brave ‘legend’s teach us lessons’ about the world. Story is incredibly powerful for shaping the way we understand and live, it is the way we teach values and customs to children and a good childhood should be full of story.

And as adults we are surrounded by story. Story’s provide frameworks for us to understand the world. Many newspapers read much like fairy tales with the need to cast characters either as heros, victims, gods or monsters. Right now the most powerful god in our collective storytelling seems to be the market – but that’s for another preach!

So I want to talk about three things today, I want to talk about story, about coloured glass and about power.

When I first knew what I was preaching on I spent quite a bit of time thinking about Esther as a type of Jesus, but I didn’t feel I was getting very far and didn’t feel it was where the spirit was leading. We will look at it briefly, but I eventually realised that the topic I had been given was Ester and Jesus so, what I want to ask in this preach is what does it mean to read the book of Esther through Jesus tinted glass, which is actually not tinted at all but perfectly clear the only glasses through which we can see anywhere near clearly?

The danger if we do not read Esther through Jesus tinted glass is that we can get it very very wrong. You see story as well as being told can be miss-told. I love the fact that our holy scriptures come mostly in the form of story and that Jesus himself taught often in story, it gives it enormous power, but it also leaves it open to be horribly miss-told and Esther is definitely a book that has been horribly miss-told.

I was listening to a talk about women in leadership by David Westlake. He was going through the whole bible looking at evidence for women’s ability to lead (also known as right to experience full discipleship and humanity) when he got to Esther he asked the audience which Disney Princess Esther most reminded them of. He was making reference to the way this story is often romanticised. He then stated that Esther was like none of them since it was a story about sexual violence. In my head I thought – so quiet like sleeping beauty then?

You see where I would disagree with Anna, though it pains me, is that people are born with bits of glass, I am much more convinced about children being given them by adults and adults being given them by those in power and whoever is in power therefore gets to set the stories or narratives.

My feeling is that the last thing the world needs is another biblical interpretation from those in the powerful classes – this is why liberation theology is so powerful, we need interpretations of scripture from oppressed people if we are really going to discern its true narrative, the bible after all was not written for the powerful but predominantly by and for the oppressed.

I remember hearing the very great saint Desmund Tutu tell a joke about missionaries. He said when the missionaries came we had the land and they had the bibles, they said let’s pray, so we closed our eyes and when we opened them, they had the land and we had the bibles. But, he said it is a very dangerous thing to put a bible in the hands of those you are trying to oppress.

So even with our Jesus tinted spectacles on there are still a lot of different angles we could approach Esther from.  What I want to look at is power, how is power used and how does Jesus use power? Because the more I read Esther the more I thought this is a book about power.

Philipians 2:6-8

who, being in very nature^[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature^[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
⁸And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death –
        even death on a cross!

How does the world use power? I’ve recently come across a great word which is Kierarchy the term was coined by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza as an elaboration of patriarchy, derived from the Greek words κύριος or kyrios (lord or master) and ἄρχω or archō (to lead, rule, govern). The term was coined in But She Said: Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation,

Basically it’s about living in a pyramid with the people at the top dictating everyone else’s experience and everyone fighting to have power over each other. Also in Kierarchy resources are not shared out equally and the people at the top who have control of the story telling, through newspapers, adverts and even children’s stories.

Often we are reminded about the need to understand the culture of a particular biblical text to properly interpret scripture and this is very true. But I’ve been massively struck recently however that sometimes it is the similarities between our experiences rather than the difference, that make biblical interpretation difficult. If you had a picture of a yellow triangle and a purple circle which would be easier to see against a yellow background? It is the kyerarchy around us that prevents us from accurately reading the bibles critique of such empire like attitudes to power.

In my world it also makes no sense to talk about sexual violence as if it were a thing of the past, as many biblical commentators seem to, and not something that is still endemic and epidemic in our society and also still justified and minimised. No I would suggest that in many ways Esther’s world is very very like our own.

Jesus was in very nature God but he never used that power in oppressive, self-promoting ways only ever in a life giving empowering way. His instructions to us are the same “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ ²⁶ But it is not this way with you, ^(C)but the one who is the greatest among you must become like ^(D)the youngest, and the leader like the servant.

So with that preamble lets look at Esther 7 verse 1 to 6.

1 Now the king and Haman came to drink wine with Esther the queen. ² And the king said to Esther on the second day also ^[a]as they drank their wine at the banquet, “^(A)What is your petition, Queen Esther? It shall be granted you. And what is your request? ^(B)Even to half of the kingdom it shall be done.” 

Now there is in the story of Esther clearly a lot of paralleling. But it is important that we accurately read the intended meaning of these parallels and not superimpose our own presumptions upon the text. This point in the story Esther who has been selected as queen because her beauty pleased the king has invited the king to a banquet. Now it would be very hard not to see the parallel’s with Vashti who refused to go to the king’s banquet to display her beauty which displeased the king. 

Now if we read this through our kierarchical lenses we might read all this as a biblical criticism of Vashti, justification for hierarchy in marriage and see Vashti in competition with Esther. I believe the text is structured to encourage us to compare the two women but not in a competitive way. There are many commentators who suggest the text implies Vashti is summoned to come wearing only her crown – but either way she is being objectified and asked to go into a room of drunk and powerful men. The comparison to Esther is not about which is the better wife but about us realising that in patriarchy all women experience objectification and oppression whether they are the queen or an orphaned girl from a despised ethnic minority. Also a comparison between the women’s behaviour as opposed to the situation they are both in is pointless as we do not know what Esther would have done in Vashti’s situation because she never was. The passage does not ask us to decide whether Vashti or Esther is a better wife, nor does Jesus, the commentators do.

So what can we learn when we read this through our Jesus tinted spectacles? Well Jesus treatment of women clearly displayed an attitude that viewed women as people – whole people. Something Xerxe and his advisors fail miserably at. And Jesus is very clear that we are not meant to lord it over people.

Both Vashti and Esther where in positions within the kyerarchy that afforded them very little power and made them very vulnerable to sexual violence. Each within that constraint broke the rules and practiced creative subversive non-violent resistance. Exactly the kind of subversion Jesus taught and practiced. When Jesus taught his disciples to turn the other cheek he was not teaching them to be doormats but to declare their humanity in the midst of oppression. If you hit someone with your right hand on their left cheek, and they would have hit with their right hand because the other was for other things, you would slap them on with the back of your hand as though they were an inferior. By turning your right cheek to them you are saying I am human I am your equal fight me as such. Jesus was not only God he was the most human human there ever was and he never ever took any action that diminished the humanity of another not even when everyone around him was attempting to strip him of his humanity. The temptation when we are experiencing oppression is to despise  our oppressor – often to the point that we become what we hate. But our ^(W)struggle is not against ^[e](X)flesh and blood, but ^(Y)against the rulers, against the powers, against the ^(Z)world forces of this ^(AA)darkness, against the ^(AB)spiritual forces of wickedness in ^(AC)the heavenly places.³ 

Therefore we must not fight as the world fights but like Esther AND Vashti find creative subversive forms of protest that usher in the transformative power of Shalom, of God’s rule.

Esther is often described as a type of Jesus and I believe she is. But again we must view this type through The Jesus. We must also remember not to stretch metaphor. I read a few things on line about Esther as a type of Jesus. Some of them where nervous of casting Esther as a type of Jesus because she was a women, others were happy to but then fished around to ascribe types to the other characters and ended up ascribing God the father to Xerxes – now I don’t know about you but I’m not entirely comfortable with my God being equated with a genocidal megalomaniac who institutionalises sexual violence, and these sort of interpretations often lead people to reject parts of scripture as ‘text’s of Terror.’ It is for the here now.

And does God offer us things on a whim because he’s had some nice food and thinks we look pretty as Xerxes did? I think Jesus’ life displays a much greater eternal offer that is not dependent on anything we do or how we look, nor does he offer us an empire or half to rule but a people to serve. And this is exactly what Esther does

Then Queen Esther replied, “^(C)If I have found favor in your sight, O king, and if it pleases the king, let my life be given me as my petition, and my people as my request; 

She does not use her little bit of power to gain lordship for herself, because she could have, she could have asked for half the kingdom or even Hamman’s head on a plate, which with our gospel tinted lenses I think we are meant to note. However she, having risked her life to gain this leverage, intercedes for her people. This is what we are meant to note that just as Christ though in very nature God did not consider equality to be grasped became obedient to the point of death. Esther having been offered equality with Xerxes did not grasp it but risked her life for the salvation of her people. Enjoy the beauty of the picture without stretching it out of shape.  

⁴ for ^(D)we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, ^(E)to be killed and to be annihilated. Now if we had only been sold as slaves, men and women, I would have remained silent, for the ^[b]trouble would not be commensurate with the ^[c]annoyance to the king.” 

A true theology of suffering is hard to come by. I can’t say I have the answer but I do think there are several identifiable pitfalls. One of them is that it is not Christian for oppressed groups to stand up and make a noise about their suffering. We should chin up grin and bear it. I think one of the reasons this narrative has deeply imbedded itself in our psyche is that for far too long the dominant expositions of scripture we’ve had have been from the point of view of the powerful. Esther seems to be saying here that slavery should not trouble the king, but we know it troubles Jesus – his very purpose was that he came for the liberation of captives. We also know from the story that the king should be fully aware of the coming genocide – he signed it off. Esther’s statement is not saying that slavery doesn’t matter someone with Jewish heritage could never believe that. She is using the example of slavery to press the desperation of the situation and to pander to the kings ego. In a kyierarchy the king quickly becomes forgetful of the position of the least. But in the kingdom of God they will be first.

And slavery and oppression always kills because they are instituted by violence. Violence and the threat of violence is how you keep a group subservient. Again often I hear people talking about this kind of oppression as though it where only something that happens a long way away or a long time ago. Wake up and smell the coffee. People are dying – in this country in there thousands as a direct result of oppression. If you live on the left hand side of Holloway road your life expectancy is ten years greater than on the right. You can argue the details with me but ultimately there is no explanation but injustice.

Jesus came that we might have life and have it in its fullness. Fullness of life is only possible when we live in a world where there is fullness of life for everyone. Our humanity is caught up in one another’s humanity. Apathy towards another’s suffering is one of the most deadening things to the spirit. You cannot feel joy if you do not know how to feel sorrow.

As Mordaci pointed out to Esther her position would not help her escape we cannot be free while our kin suffer.

⁵ Then King Ahasuerus ^[d]asked Queen Esther, “Who is he, and where is he, ^[e]who would presume to do thus?” 

King Ahasuerus can afford to be forgetful, he speaks from a place of privileged. The difficult thing about privilege is its invisible to those that have it. A Jew, even if they didn’t previously know Esther was a Jew would instantly know exactly what she meant and who she was talking about.

For the privileged, with their oppression filtering lenses and their entitlement complexes, fairytales and stories are either pure entertainments or the means of enforcing and maintaining their world view.

For the millions of women not being beaten by their partner 50 Shades of grey is just fiction. For all the theologians who have never experienced oppression and sexual violence Esther is a comment on another culture far removed from ours and we can afford to sanities and romanticise it through our interpretation. I can tell you now there are many young women in this borough for whom sexual violence and hareems are a daily reality, and there are young men struggling for their lives in heirrarchys trying to cling to a sense of humanity. And I can tell you that 50 shades is not fiction – it really happens to real people only without the happy ever after.

⁶ Esther said, “^(F)A foe and an enemy is this wicked Haman!” Then Haman became terrified before the king and queen.

Earlier I said that both Vashti and Esther had practiced non-violent resistance. I spent a while deciding whether this was the case for Esther – because Hamman comes to a pretty violent end. But the violence is the violence he meted out. Just to note that Esther’s latter request that the Jews be allowed to go on a killing spree I don’t think is an example of non-violent resistance. But here all she has done is expose the truth of who Hemman is.

You see the maintenance of kyerarchy is dependent on the maintenance of lies and deception, whereas the kingdom of God, the kingdom Jesus ushered in is established by the search for truth. It’s a dangerous and lonely place at the top – or even near the top. Mugabe would be a modern day example.

Who saw the Paralympic opening ceremony? Who saw what the athleats did with their lanyards? The tape that held there badge? There was a lot of speculation on twitter that they had deliberately hidden it. Atos the main sponsor of the paralympics has the government contract for assessing disability living allowance and many people have been documenting thousands of cases of people who have died with one of the main contributing factors being loss of DLA. Atos like Hamman went to an event for publicity it seriously backfired for Hamman. I’m prepaid to put my neck out and say I hope it seriously back fires for atos and am in full solidarity with the many protests planned over the next few weeks.

It is not only those with disability who are suffering at the moment, there has been a rise in homelessness and resulting death, there will be increasing segregation in access to healthcare, more children suffering and dying as a result of abuse and neglect and it is only going to get worse unless we have a significant radical and serious change in the story being told and lenses through which we see the world. Austerity is a lie there is more than enough money – it’s just in the wrong place. 

The political classes at the moment are telling a dangerous story and we must answer it with a better more powerful story.

I know its not very fashionable to be so critical, especially in such a basic way, but where would we be if people had never preached against slavery. There are some truly oppressive and evil things in our world today and if we read Esther through Jesus tinted lenses we will find a stark account of the evil in the world, realise that no one wins anything of value by playing the kierarchy game, and that just as Jesus did we must join the ranks of those who practice non-violence which puts you in total head on opposition of Kierarchy and empire like use of power because it calls you to be a servant of all. This may seem to make no sense but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong.

There are different levels of privilege in this room but whatever privilege or power you do have learn the lessons of the book of Esther, don’t allow it to blind you like Xerxes or callous you like Hamman. Refuse to have power over anyone but use your power for; For the ushering in of God’s Kingom, for the liberation of people, for the intercession on behalf of the oppressed before the powerful, for the bringing about of God’s Shalom. We will never not be living in the clash between kyeriarchy and justice until Jesus returns. Just yesterday the EDL were out in Walthom forest facing collective resistance from united against fascism.

And though you may feel afraid as Esther did of the possible consequences of opposing colossal power, chose like she did to oppose oppression and your life will be all the richer and more human. God’s perfect love drives out all fear.