"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?

A Conversation about the Conversation

 a time to be silent and a time to speak, 

Ecclesiastes 3:7b

But knowing which is which is the tricky bit. Anyone reading threads may have noticed that I don't feel like now is the time to be silent. A huge part of me is saying; walk away let them have the last word, its not worth it. The conversation is so predictable in its tone and direction it's been had a thousand times is this really going anywhere?

The other part of me however for whatever reason is not going to let go of this one. Partly because while I began with some critiques and questions about the original post I now feel like I'm defending its main point. 

During the discussion women collectively or individually have been labeled as boring, lacking in humor, aggressive, arrogant and of course feminist. Feminist I do not consider an insult so go ahead. I will dispute that women in general are boring or lacking in humor but I possibly am but I never read anywhere that that was a sin or that the point of threads was to make people laugh. 

While the phrase 'you sexist, patriarchal, misogynistic, fart stop mansplaining things to me' has gone through my head many times, I have not written it and have repented of thinking it because these are all human beings I am interacting with and because I am determined in my commitment to non-violence in thought word and dead (it's gonna be a long journey).

But its so difficult to move the conversation about gender forwards. 90% of the time we are discussing each others motivations, experiences and emotional responses rather than answering each others points.

At the end of the day is there any point me discussing this with a complimentarian? If we fundamentally disagree with each others reading of scripture can the dialogue move forward? Are either of us actually even replying to each other or are we writing for the audience in our head still deciding on their theology? How do we get away from the trap of throwing passive aggressive insults at each other, concentrating on each others emotions rather than answering each others points? How do we get good at this discussion? 

Am I really going to trall through 'why men don't listen and women can't read maps' so I can say yes I did read it and here's what I think. Would it be a productive use of time? 

What ground rules do we need for productive conversation? Would love to hear others thoughts and experiences.

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. 

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.

Two Books on Women

 

I recently read 'How to be a Woman' by Caitlin Moran followed fairly immediately by 'A year of Biblical Womanhood' by Rachel Held Evans. I'm glad I read them this way round! It struck me that there were some interesting differences and notable contrasts that I wanted to share with the world.

I think I might start backwards. Both authors conclude that there is not and shouldn't be a prescribed way to be a woman. For Evans book this felt like the natural conclusion to her discussion. I felt the narrative learnt from the experience of other women from a diversity of cultural experiences and approached such learning with a humble heart. Yet it stayed authentically itself and gave me as the reader permission to do so as well.

Moran's book however irritated me most of the way through. It was essentially an autobiography but despite it's beginning and conclusion about the diversity of female experience I couldn't help but feel I was being told that this was or should have been my experience as well. Especially the stuff around adolescents. 

Both books reference other women who have fought similar battles before and have begun to forge a way and in who's path we follow as well as contemporaries. Evan's does so with great respect and gratitude to those 'Women of Valour' both past and present. One of her final resolutions is to identify and praise women of valor. 

Moran by contrasts dismisses most of her contemporaries, including Object and even Greer as having become irrelevant.  The only woman who comes of relatively well is Lady Gaga.  While Evans writing humbly acknowledge's the work of those who have gone before. Moran writes 'When Simone de Beauvoir wrote one is note born a woman one becomes a woman - she didn't know the half of it.' Hmm.

Moran repeatedly says that woman have done very little (even nothing) over the last 100,000 years, while men she claims have made great achievements in science, art politics and repeatedly in her long lists she includes empire. I find it very problematic to list empire in with a list of great advancements without any deconstruction or critique of the very idea of empire. Evan's by contrast retells the stories of many great women's achievement both biblical and extra biblical. She also on occasion broadens her critique not just to hierarchy between genders but the idea of hierarchy at all in any context.

Both repeatedly use the word 'Lady'. I have written about my dislike of the word here. Evans however only ever used it in contexts where, had she been talking about men she may well have said gentlemen. Generally when she was talking about people and only once directed to the readers. Moran however got right up my noise by continually giving instructions to her readers preceded by calling them to attention with 'Ladies!'. 

Both authors while not writing a book about violence against women and the global situation do reference it. Evans to put her own struggles and difficulties in perspective. Moran to explain that the problem with modern feminism is that it is focused on these things while ignoring things like glossy magazines and pants being too small.

Both authors once mention the Vietnam war, both use it for illustrative purposes. In the case of both books I have forgotten what was being described! Evan's I remember said that some group of people discussed something - "Like veterans talk about 'Nam" I can't remember feeling it was inappropriate or offensive. I cannot remember the details of what Moran was talking about either save that it was about running away "faster than a Vietnamese boy covered in Nepalm". I wasn't expecting that sentence it kind of sprang at me from no where and made me feel positively sick.

Both authors discussed having children. Evan's wrote an honest and reflective account of her worries and fears about having children. She also explored issues around women's relationship with parenting and the difficulty of living in a world which defines women in relation to children and explored the duff theology in parenting as a woman's highest calling. Moran on the other hand wrote 'Childbirth gives women a gigantic set of balls'. To be fair on Moran this is not all she said and she did also point out that there are a variety of life experiences that can change and shape us. But it's almost that that makes these bizar one lines so problematic there is an inconsistency in her writing.

Both authors mention their vagina's. Evans in a discussion about teenage experience of church teaching on sex.  Famously there was big discussions about how that would affect christian bookshops and whether they were willing to stock the book or not. As far as I am aware there where no such discussions as to the inclusion of the c word which I can't even bring myself to write, but that's apparently what Moran calls her vagina.

Both books made me laugh out loud. Moran's book also made me shout and swear. Evan's book also made me cry. Moran's book left me with an overwhelming sense of frustration. Evan's book left me peaceful and wiser. 

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: 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.

The church is not feminised - blow your noses on your man sized tissues and get over yourselves!

This is not the blog I should be writing.

But something has riled me. It makes me angry and sad at the same time. I am fed up with this - we've got it so tough, the church doesn't understand us, it need's to grow a pair, drink bear and have a fight. 

So quick reality check. 

1.) If you have a penis you're a man. Stop trying to figure out what that means and how to prove it - you don't need to. What you need to figure out is who Jesus is and how you can best serve him and love him.

2.) The church is still run overwhelmingly run by men (even in churches that believe in women in leadership) so if you don't like it don't blame it on women, they're not the one's with much power in this situation.

3.) Please develop a theology of personhood before developing a theology of gender (and remember there is the possibility gender is an oppressive practice)

4.) There are people dying spiritually and physically, there is oppression, greed and violence everywhere, Jesus is coming back and there just isn't time for you to have a long search for your sense of maleness.

5.) If you feel personally dissempowerd as a man please check who those oppressing you and 'lording it over you' are before automatically assuming them to be women - they may be but more likely they are other men, patriarchy is not great for most men either.

6.) You are not from Mars nor am I from Venus we are both from earth, hewn from the very same stuff. 

I believe Men and Women do indeed experience the world differently because we are forced into different boxes. But the response is not to claim the boxes are great and ask why the other person is asking us to sit in their box. The response is to step out of our boxes and into the fullness of life in Christ - which he offers, the same to all humanity because we are human.

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!

Words, Spades and Logic

I jumped into a conversation on twitter today, I wasn't invited so probably not very welcome either, but that's the beauty of twitter. Anyway the conversation went round in some very familiar circles. It began with the assertion that not allowing women in leadership was sexist.

So here are a collection of my thoughts about some of the lack of logic and correct use of words in the arguments for complementarianism.

Sexism is discrimination based on sex according to Wikipedia. How is not allowing women into all church offices NOT sexism? It clearly is. 

Equal but different makes no sense. Equal means the same - ask any maths teacher. You can logically argue that women and men are equal in x,y and z but not a,b and c and that it is therefore equitable (which means fair) to treat them differently, but not equal.

To be fair none of us believe men and women are the same. I don't think any of us believe any two people are the same. What we are actually disagreeing about is in what way's, if any, beyond the anatomical women and men are different. 

"Wives should follow their husbands unless they are leading them into sin"

This is either illogical or has a very narrow view of sin. Lets imagine Wife A and Husband B have a decision to make. They pray. A thinks they should do C, B thinks they should do D. They cannot agree. God is asking them to do C. In what context exactly would it not be sinful for A to do D? Surely any time you follow someone other than God that is a sin. Which reduces the contexts where a wife should follow their husband to very few circumstances that would be so inconsequential as to not be worth building a doctrine on.

Husband's providing covering, oversite, are the priests of the houshold etc. For all of these ideas please explain to me how they are compatible with the protestant understanding of the priesthood of all believers? How is Jesus brining the same salvation to men and women if women need men for some sort of spiritual protection?

The women in leadership debate is a phrase I am not a fan of 1.) because it often disconnects it from a discussion about marriage and they cannot be separate issues and 2.) because actually this is about whether women can be full disciples of Christ. 

The way to win these arguments is not what I have set out here, but to appeal to the witness of scripture and the spirit. But this has all been knocking about in my head so I thought I'd get it out there.

Let's start calling a spade a spade, sexism is sex based discrimination, sex based discrimination is sexist. Complimentarianism is idolatrous and illogical. Churches that do not permit equality of opportunity to men and women are sexist.  

I will remain civil and try to avoid personal attacks but we have to stop all this pretending to be polite about it. We must speak the truth in love and it is neither truthful nor loving not to challenge sexism and call it out for what it is.