Queen Esther Was Not a Slut: The Harsh Treatment of Women in the Old Testament

“Every single book in your Bible is written by a man.” Mark Driscoll link
 

Recently, The Gospel™ Coalition has been running a series by Bethany Jenkins on the life of Queen Esther. I want focus on For Such a Time as This. For those of you who are unaware Esther's story, here is a short post.

My purpose in writing this is not to discuss the well known story of Esther. Instead I wish to focus on the difficult life for women in the Old Testament. Recently, I have become concerned by the rise of patriarchal based theology and what seems to be an attempt to blame women for problems that were caused by the men who dictated the rules of society.

Let's take a quick look at the early history of Esther from Esther 2:5-8.

Now there was in the citadel of Susa a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, named Mordecai son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, 6 who had been carried into exile from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, among those taken captive with Jehoiachin[a] king of Judah. 7 Mordecai had a cousin named Hadassah, whom he had brought up because she had neither father nor mother. This young woman, who was also known as Esther, had a lovely figure and was beautiful. Mordecai had taken her as his own daughter when her father and mother died.

8 When the king’s order and edict had been proclaimed, many young women were brought to the citadel of Susa and put under the care of Hegai. Esther also was taken to the king’s palace and entrusted to Hegai, who had charge of the harem.

…10 Esther had not revealed her nationality and family background, because Mordecai had forbidden her to do so. 

Women had precious little say in this culture. They were duty bound to do what their male guardians and fathers told them to do. Also, when the king spoke, his edicts were to be obeyed. To refuse usually meant the person was put to death. There were few ways for a woman to earn a living and support herself. That was left up to the father or husband. To refuse their male authority figures would mean expulsion from the family unit. With no money and no protection, the woman had little chance of survival. Most died or turned to prostitution.

Knowing this, let's look at a couple of thoughts from Bethany Jenkins' post.

 First, although Esther’s rise to power is remarkable, the author’s main issue isn’t female empowerment, but the death threat faced by God’s people. In other words, the main distinction in the book isn’t between men and women, but between Jew and Gentile.

Second, although we’re told that Esther hides her background, we’re not told why (Esth. 2:20). We don’t know her motives, only know her situation—she’s a young Jewish girl who has been conscripted unwillingly in a pagan king’s harem. The moral ambiguity of her story raises the question, “What real choice does someone in her situation have?”

This book reveals much about the plight of women in that day and age.

Although the main point of the book is not about the distinction between men and women, it illuminates the plight of women in that culture quite clearly. Esther was at the mercy of both her guardian and the king. Her ability to *go rogue* was nil. If she had not obeyed them, she could have been thrown out of the house by Mordecai and ordered to be killed by the King.

Jenkins claims that we don't know why she hid her background. 

I say we do. She quotes Esther 2:20

 20 But Esther had kept secret her family background and nationality just as Mordecai had told her to do, for she continued to follow Mordecai’s instructions as she had done when he was bringing her up.

Jenkins claims we don't know her motives. I think that her motives were made quite clear by the passage. She did whatever she was told to do by Mordecai like she had done her whole life.

Jenkins claims there is moral ambiguity in her actions.

I disagree. This is a young woman who is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. She must obey Mordecai and the king or she will most likely die (or be sent to fend for herself.)  Should a woman who is being raped fight to the death just to remain *undefiled?* I think there are some religionists out there who would say she should. More on that shortly.

Did Esther make flawed decisions along the way?

 As Karen Jobes writes:

Perhaps, like Esther, you have been brought to this moment in your life by circumstances over which you had no control, combined with flawed decisions you made along the way. Perhaps instead of living for God, you have so concealed your Christian faith that no one would even identify you as a Christian. 

To be truthful, I am having trouble elucidating Esther's flawed decisions. It appears like she handled the situation quite well and was also able to save her people due to her actions. She did not deny she was Jewish. She merely did not declare it from the rooftops. Her discretion was admirable in that situation.

Mark Driscoll: Queen Esther was a slut.

We wrote a post about Mark Driscoll's incredibly disgusting pronouncements on Queen Esther: Mark Driscoll's Bizarre World of Queen Esther the Bachelorette. It is important to understand that Driscoll's views on men and women had a profound effect on a broad cross section of evangelicalism. We believe that his DNA is alive and well and still affects such groups as Acts 29. Here is what he had to say.

““She grows up in a very lukewarm religious home as an orphan raised by her cousin. Beautiful, she allows men to tend to her needs and make her decisions. Her behavior is sinful and she spends around a year in the spa getting dolled up to lose her virginity with the pagan king like hundreds of other women. She performs so well that he chooses her as his favorite. Today, her story would be, a beautiful young woman living in a major city allows men to cater to her needs, undergoes lots of beauty treatment to look her best, and lands a really rich guy whom she meets on The Bachelor and wows with an amazing night in bed. She’s simply a person without any character until her own neck is on the line, and then we see her rise up to save the life of her people when she is converted to a real faith in God.”

“Esther has been grossly misinterpreted.” (Mark , of course, will interpret it correctly)

“Feminists have tried to cast Esther’s life as a tragic tale of male domination and female liberation. Many evangelicals have ignored her sexual sin and godless behavior to make her into a Daniel-like figure, which is inaccurate. Some have even tried to tie her story in with modern-day, sex-slave trafficking as she was brought before the powerful king as part of his harem.”

As you can imagine, TWW was not amused. Here are a couple of our responses to his statement. Please read the entire post for all of our concerns.

1.”Beautiful, she allows men to tend to her needs and make her decisions.”

Driscoll shows an abysmal lack of understanding about the role of women in this culture. She did not “allow” men to make decisions for her; she was forced to do so.  She would be forced to do so if she was beautiful or ugly.

2. “She spends around a year in the spa getting dolled up to lose her virginity with the pagan king like hundreds of other women.”

Let’s get something straight.  Being taken to a harem by a bunch of the kings’ men is not a day at the spa. This was about one thing for everyone involved and that was making the king happy. If the king wasn't happy, everyone involved would die.   She had ZERO right of refusal unless she wanted a straight ticket to eternity.

3.”She performs so well that he chooses her as his favorite.”

Once again, Driscoll demonstrates his unremitting fixation with sex. He assumes that she was some sort of sex machine that serviced the king in such a way that he made her his queen. How does he know that? Could Esther have been kind, thoughtful, smart, or humorous? I guess it doesn’t matter because, in Driscoll’s world, it all boils down to sex. So that was, is and ever more shall be, his final answer.

4. “Today, her story would be, a beautiful young woman living in a major city allows men to cater to her needs, undergoes lots of beauty treatment to look her best, and lands a really rich guy whom she meets on The Bachelor.”

Driscoll’s attempt to bring this into a modern context shows a bizarre reinterpretation of the historical nature of that culture. Did he ever take a history course?  If he did, I want the name of his professor. Today’s reality shows are based on freedom of choice. One does not have to be Kim Kardashian, although Deb comes pretty close. (Let's see if she is reading this). But,  from what I have read about Driscoll’s needs, his wife better be on her "A" game or another book will be forthcoming, bless her heart.

Many women were treated badly by men in the Old Testament.

There is no question in my mind that man is utterly depraved. For me, this is seen in the treatment of women in OT stories. Before I begin, let's look at Biblical Womanhood and the Problem of the Old Testament by Trilla Newbell and posted at none other than the Desiring God website.(John Piper's site.) As you can well imagine, I disagree with many of the gender posts at this website. However, here is something we can agree upon. The Old Testament is replete with the abuse visited upon women by men,

In writing this post, Tony Reinke passed along some helpful research suggestions as I processed what I was reading. On this point he sent the following quote from Margaret Köstenberger's book Jesus and the Feminists, where she writes:

'It is true that the historical narrative books of the Hebrew Scriptures witness to numerous abuses of this abiding principle of male headship in the Old Testament period, such as arbitrary divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1–2), the intermittent practice of polygamy, adultery, rape, incest, and so on. Scripture does not condone these behaviors and attitudes. At the same time, the New Testament does not abrogate the principle of male headship even subsequent to redemption in Christ. Thus, Paul still can call Christian wives to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22–24), and Peter similarly enjoins wives even of unbelieving husbands to submit to them (1 Peter 3:1–6). (34)'

Unlike Newbell, I believe that such actions indeed call into question the concept of male headship. When women are consistently subordinated by men, including men that are held up as heroes in the OT, then I do believe we have a problem in how we perceive gender roles. Let's look at a few specific stories and examples of women being treated badly.

Wendy Alsup wrote Some Things You Should Know About Women and the Old Testament

1. Men were told to marry their rape victims.

 I used to stop at the same point at which Alsup stops.

Deuteronomy 22's instructions for a rapist to marry the woman he raped. Again, remember that civilization was not very civilized at this point. The common practice outside of the law for a woman who was raped was that she was killed by her family because of the shame (a practice still used in some cultures).

If she was not killed, she had to live in shame with no options for a future life with a family that was accepted in her culture. She likely could only support herself through future prostitution. Exodus 22:16 – 17 gives similar instructions for the case of a man seducing a woman. 

Again, presuppositions against Scripture as a misogynist text have caused some to read these instructions in the worst possible light. But I look at cultures throughout the world, including our own, in which many men still see sexual conquest as a game with no consequences for themselves, hearts hardened to the harm put upon the one they seduced. 

This law in Deuteronomy gave the woman in this situation a path to a respectable life in her culture. And this law held the man to the consequences he created in his sin against this woman.  He had to pay her father a dowry worthy of the woman he violated, and . He was required to remove the shame from her and restore her to a position of respectability in her culture. When you look at it from that perspective, there is much beauty in this law for a woman so violated in a culture that had NO safeguards for her otherwise.

Yes, it is true. God gave a raped woman a way to look respectable in that culture. However, as readers of this blog are aware, men who rape are most likely abusive in their personal life. Can you imagine staying married to a man who rapes women for the rest of your life? Sure, the victim has food and shelter but what went on behind closed doors? What about the fear factor in the marriage? How kind do you think he would be since he was coerced by the law to marry her?

2. Rape the women instead of the man because raping the man would be "outrageous."

From Judges 19:

While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it was saying to one another, “Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Just imagine! We must do something! So speak up!”

How awful is this? Yes, this is a story that shows the outrageous treatment of women in that culture.They were definitely second class citizens in many circumstances. The narrative demonstrates that men put the value of men much higher than that of a daughter or concubine. See how the man treated the ravaged poor women who died. After her rape, he merely says "Get up and get going." No words of sympathy for her even though she was dead or about to die.

3. Concubines and polygamy

I have often heard that God allowed people to practice polygamy due to their hard hearts. He supposedly did not condone multiple marriages and commanded a one man/one woman marital relationship. However, in the following verses, it seems as if God was allowing for multiple wives for a king as long as it wasn't *many.* From Deuteronomy 17:15-17

be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must 

Once again, if the king wished to marry a woman, she had little choice in the matter. In fact, things got even worse for women who were forced to be concubines. Here is an explanation of concubines.

 Concubines in the patriarchal age and beyond did not have equal status with a wife. A concubine could not marry her master because of her slave status, although, for her, the relationship was exclusive and ongoing. Sometimes concubines were used to bear children for men whose wives were barren. Concubines in Israel possessed many of the same rights as legitimate wives, without the same respect.

Some women were forced to be concubines due to the dependent status of women in those days.

 Unmarried women in ancient times were completely dependent on their family members, such as their fathers, brothers, etc. If for some reason a woman had no family members or her husband had died or divorced her, she would be left with few options for survival.

Most women in ancient times were uneducated and unskilled in a trade. Providing for themselves was very difficult, and they were vulnerable to those who would prey upon them. For many women in dire situations, becoming a concubine was a much more suitable option than prostitution, homelessness, or death. At least a concubine would be provided a home and afforded a certain amount of care.

It appears God allowed the sin of concubinage, in part, to provide for women in need,

I guess we can say that at least they didn't die of starvation but neither did they have a normal life. Can you imagine being just one of many women whose only selection was based on having sex and children?

4. The Song of Solomon conundrum: Which of the 700 was she?

I have always smiled at the explanation of the Song of Solomon. Solomon was supposed to be in love with this special woman. However, Solomon also had tons of wives and concubines. I wonder how long his passion for that particular women lasted before she became just another one of the 700.

King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 

So this post doesn't go too long, the following examples will have short explanations.

5. Rachel and Leah: Genesis 29

Their father created an elaborate deception so that Jacob is tricked into marrying Leah although he wished to marry Rachel. Eventually he marries Rachel as well. Can you imagine Leah's life, knowing that she is not wanted by Jacob and being forced to marry him by her father? 

6. Lot allows his daughters to be gang raped. Genesis 19

Two angels, disguised as men, came to visit Lot who was living in Sodom. When the men of Sodom demanded that Lot turn them over to them so they could rape them, Lot offered his two daughters instead. Talk about dysfunctional families! Digression: I always get a chuckle out of the inane explanation that Lot was merely trying to hospitable to his guests as this was expected of him. Have any of you heard that one?

7. Women had fewer days of being *unclean* if they birthed a boy. Leviticus 12

 ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days,
… If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. "

8. Females were of less monetary value than males. Leviticus 27:6

for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver;

9. The power rape of Bathsheba. Are those who blame Bathsheba part of the purity culture?

Some claim that Bathsheba seduced David. They believe that Bathsheba was bathing on the roof in full view of the palace. Poor David- he couldn't help himself. If only she had been wearing a long jean skirt… However, that explanation is most likely not true. Here is one thought from the  The Rape of Bathsheba at Anabaptist Red

This particular translation does a little bit of commentary by specifying that she was bathing as her religion required. There is some scholarly debate about whether this bathing was religiously required or not, most likely for cleansing after menstruation if so, but the general consensus I’ve encountered believes that this is the case. This would essentially make her bathing the exact opposite of flaunting to lure the King: a devout religious action.

Even if not, there is absolutely no reason to believe that she was deliberately exposing herself. She was bathing in her courtyard (open roof so rain could fall in the well – remember they didn’t have plumbing), as anybody would do. She seems wealthy enough that this was probably a private courtyard, but even if not, a public well would have still been blocked out from prying male eyes. Prying male eyes, that is, except for the King who was neglecting his duties at the battlefront and had the benefit of a much higher rooftop from which to look out over the city. David had probably already seen that well and others plenty of times. It may not have been ethical for him to hold that view over Bathsheba and many others, but as King, he did have that power and there was nothing she could do about it.

There isn’t even any reason to assume that she was naked. We typically bathe naked, but that isn’t the case for all cultures, where some women bathe(d) with a cloth wrapped around them. Particularly if there was a chance that somebody else would see, this is a likely scenario. David could have been just as enamored with her while she was covered up, and part of why we assume otherwise (along with the cultural gap, of course) is the purity culture instinct to blame women for men’s failings.

It is quite clear that Bathsheba had absolutely no power to disobey King David. In this post, What You Need to Know About Bathsheba, the author correctly calls this a power rape. The article makes the point that the Bible only calls David a sinner in this relationship. Remember, Bathsheba, could have been killed by the king for defying his order to come to the palace. She is fully the victim.

Like her husband, she had very little choice but to obey the king’s summons or risk death for defying him.

I know that some men, as suggested by Mark Driscoll in his post, believe that a woman should struggle to the death to prevent being raped. I, on the other hand, believe a woman's life is far more valuable than some silly belief that a rape makes a woman less pure. In the eyes of God, she is the wronged one, not the one who did wrong. Good night!

Summary Point

Women have been subjugated by men throughout the history of the world. When I hear a fundamentalist theologian attempting to prove that the goal of all women, since the Fall, is to usurp the authority of men,  I say "Codswallop!" Women have been sidelined, harshly treated, abused and controlled for thousands of years by men in authority. Men, on the other hand, have been in control. Look around the world and ask "How's that been working out?' 

Comments

Queen Esther Was Not a Slut: The Harsh Treatment of Women in the Old Testament — 331 Comments

  1. People like Driscoll get a cockeyed, ignorant idea in their heads and just think it’s from the Lord. This is likely because they’ve cut off all meaningful correction from their lives–including their spouses–and so they go off half-cocked and make fools of themselves. Given the guru idolatry present in the typical celeb culture church, they have no clue what fools they’re becoming, every absurd notion that comes into their heads is lauded as brilliance. They become very much like a man who had a very wise wife, Abigail, whom he probably had stopped listening to himself, a fool who’s folly kills him.

    That would bad enough, if they only destroyed themselves, but what is far worse is that those narcissists in power usually drag down many with them, both the wise, whom they cut off and slander, and the foolish, who follow them into that destruction.

  2. “Every single book in your Bible is written by a man.” Mark Driscoll

    Coming out of lurking to say isn’t there some debate about this? Many believe the author of Hebrews is unnamed because it was written by a woman.

    Great post!

  3. One of my pet peeves is when pastors and their defenders trot out David as excuse as an for wrong doing when they get caught. See! David did this or that and he is a man after God’s heart! (they never say who said that, btw)

    It always cracks me up because he would be in prison today. I mean, aren’t we glad so many things have progressed past the typical OT situation?

  4. I have been looking at the history of Persian women. All through the Persian’s history there were women warriors. Many were also protectors of the people and champions of human rights. They were/are called Shir-Zans or lionesses.

    Xerxes, Esther’s husband, had a woman admiral. “Artemesia of Halicarnassius (now in modern western Turkey) one of Xerxes’ most capable admirals during the failed invasions of Greece in 480 BC. The daring naval exploits of Artemesia reputedly led Xerxes to state that “…my men have become women and my women have become men”. Artemesia was also one of Xerxes’ chief military advisors. (see link below)” So, whoever wrote the book of Esther may have misunderstood Esther’s position in Xerxes’ household. She was acting from the position of Shir-Zan when she went to him pleading for her people.

    http://kavehfarrokh.com/iranica/the-women-of-persia/the-persian-lioness-iranian-women-in-history/ Here is a link to some info about Persian women warriors.

  5. Missus and I were discussing a related thought today about Fundamentalism and this new breed of patriarchal wierdos. Seems like somewhere along the line all the Bible characters got stuffed into boxes and now the only thing taken from their stories is the same tired tropes. Gideon did some decent things but he was basically an unbelieving coward who didn’t believe God the first time. David was a great man but had some issues with women and was a weak father (you know which sin doesn’t get any real air-time? The one where he gets thousands killed because of his pride). Daniel was the perfect Christian. Solomon was a great man but had too many wives (like that was his only problem. The wives led him astray. Uh-huh). I’d never heard the Esther is a slut narrative, but sure, let’s add that to the pile!

    You get my point.

    It seems to come from a very rigid view of the text – if it’s recorded, there’s this cut and dry lesson we can draw from it. It’s all very 6-year-old’s Sunday school lesson. The cultural and historical context is largely ignored. “Those things which were written afore-time were written for our learning”, so therefore the primary reason for reading anything in the OT is to force some present-day lesson out of it that is at least hinted at in the text itself. Actual discernment and discussion of whether “this great man” did the right thing at all doesn’t enter into it, or even if the writer of the text was fair to the actors in the story in showing all sides (honestly, I’m struggling with my views of scripture these days. I have a lot of reading to do).
    It’s just as bad in the NT – because Luke recorded something Paul did without direct commentary on whether it was right or wrong, well, Paul was right and therefore our job is to discern why he was right and apply it to our lives. It’s very forced and unfair to what God has given us.

    I say all that to say this. Time and distance makes it so easy to forget that Paul was an actual darned man just like the rest of us, with pride, weaknesses, bad decisions, etc. David was a supremely messed up son of a gun who nevertheless stayed tenderhearted towards God. Gideon was apparently not a coward. Esther made the best of an awful situation, not only for her, but for her people. When you place yourself in their shoes and try to look through their eyes, they become people again, not Sunday school moral stories. The picture you get is awful sometimes, just like it is today. And women were treated awfully, simply put.

    Clowns like Driscoll trying to force some narrative on us aren’t helping either when I’m trying to work these things out. No matter how you slice it, sick, sick things went down in the Old Testament.

  6. Queen Esther put her life on the line for God’s chosen people. What has Mark Driscoll done for anyone but himself? Dee you will be glad to know that I am about to ‘USURP’ a male only Presbytery (about 20 men), boy am I looking forward to this and I am going to use their own Code, that is there to protect them, against them.

  7. @ Wisdomchaser:
    Artemesia of Halicarnassius was Xerxes’ admiral and military advisor during the same time that Esther was queen. Esther may very well have known Artemesia.

  8. Lydia wrote:

    One of my pet peeves is when pastors and their defenders trot out David as excuse as an for wrong doing when they get caught. See! David did this or that and he is a man after God’s heart! (they never say who said that, btw)
    It always cracks me up because he would be in prison today. I mean, aren’t we glad so many things have progressed past the typical OT situation?

    They neglect to cite the harsh punishment of losing his son over this affair. It wasn’t without consequences. Today’s celebrity preachers who cite David seem to think there should be no consequences for their sin.

  9. “Every single book in your Bible is written by a man.” Mark Driscoll

    LOL, Driscoll is just pure comedy at times.

  10. A good seminary might have corrected such ignorant readings as Driscoll proposed. Too bad he despised such a route in planting Mars Hill Church first. Even he stated, he did it too soon and without proper mentoring/oversight. That is ironic considering how he rejected his own elder oversight plan and the church was never really under a denomination, which stood a chance–at least–at holding MHC and MD accountable.

  11. @ GovPappy:

    You know Gov, an OT scholar I met last summer summed up the “theme” of the OT in a one word: Rescue. And all those rescue attempts ultimately led to Jesus Christ.

    Therefore we have lots of creepy people God was using in rescue attempts in the midst of a very pagan world. To read it as prescriptive and applicable to today is dangerous stuff.

  12. I left a question on the TGC post asking what Esther’s “compromises” and “flawed decisions” were. I also noted that TGC seems to be intent on diminishing one of the few strong female characters in the Bible, as part of their overall effort to subordinate women as much as possible. I doubt the comment will ever see the light of day.

  13. “Every single book in your Bible is written by a man.” ~Mark Driscoll

    Driscoll declared many things as true that either weren’t true, or at the very least, they weren’t provable.

    We don’t know who all the authors of all the books. Therefore it cannot be proven that every single book in the Bible was written by men.
    We do no that there are many things in there that originated with women. They were the true authors of those words. Words from Miriam, Deborah, Lemuel’s mother, Mary, etc.

    So it can’t be said that every part of every book in the Bible was written by a man. Some parts were written by women.

  14. Mara wrote:

    So it can’t be said that every part of every book in the Bible was written by a man. Some parts were written by women.

    Also worth noting, IMO, is that the understanding of most Christians is that the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible, through people….

    The Bible teaches that all believers receive the Holy Spirit, and that would include women.

    It is very sad and frustrating to see the lengths gender complementarian / female subordinationists / patriarchalists will go to in order to diminish women in general, or any contributions women have made or will.

    Jesus lifted women up at a time in his culture when they were very marginalized.

    About all the men fled Jesus around the time of the crucifixion and his death, except for the women. (I think John was one of the few males who did not run away?)

  15. Esther cannot be considered a heroine and an example of courage because courage and an iron will is not considered “feminine.” Jesus set his face like flint to go to Jerusalem. Esther set her face like flint to go into the king’s presence without being summoned. Esther was a type of Christ, IMO, but you will never, ever hear that from any of our very manly and masculine and courageous men who face down a keyboard and a screen without flinching. Yes, Gospel Glitterati Guys, I’m talking about you. You should live long enough to have the courage of Esther and any of the women and men who are currently being enslaved by vicious men who are determined to perpetrate genocide.

    Last but not least, Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler and Wayne Grudem and John Piper and Bruce Ware and Paul Tripp and every other man and woman who promoted Driscoll and Driscoll’s teaching are pathetic, cowardly posers who use pious words and platitudes and spiritual blackmail to perpetuate the same misogyny that is the norm for the world while proclaiming you desire to protect and love women (see Karen Hinckley.) Be like Esther and Jesus if you can.

  16. Dear Bethany, there is nothing morally ambiguous about what Esther did. What about her story do you find morally ambiguous? Whose morality? What would you have done?

    Dear Margaret Kostenberger, the Bible does not establish the principle of male headship in the OT so there is no need to abrogate it in the NT. That is your assertion and your assumption only, and those are not the same thing as God’s word.

  17. I look at Esther much as the same way as I see Daniel-a captive bound by the capricious actions of a pagan sovereign who had no respect for Jewish religion or culture. Except, being a woman, Esther had no right to speak up for herself (look what happened to Vashti). There is a lot we don’t know about Esther, and where Scripture is silent, it is best not to speculate. What we do know is that she saved her people because she was willing to risk her life to appeal to the king, and because of Esther, the remnant of the Jewish race was preserved. Jobes’ and Driscoll’s interpretations of Esther the Queen are just plain nonsense.

  18. @ Gram3:
    Sometimes I think I’m so numb to seeing the crazy I don’t even pick up on the little unspoken underlying assumptions that lead to the crazy. Wow.

  19. GC wrote:

    I left a question on the TGC post asking what Esther’s “compromises” and “flawed decisions” were. I also noted that TGC seems to be intent on diminishing one of the few strong female characters in the Bible, as part of their overall effort to subordinate women as much as possible. I doubt the comment will ever see the light of day.

    I think you are correct on all counts.

  20. @ Gram3:
    Will you please let us know the outcome on the comment. This is important to me. Those posts are written by a woman.

  21. @ Law Prof:
    Law Prof wrote:

    This is likely because they’ve cut off all meaningful correction from their lives–including their spouses–and so they go off half-cocked and make fools of themselves.

    If you read the original post, you will find out that he got this idea from….get ready….his 13 year old daughter. I kid you not.

  22. Lydia wrote:

    It always cracks me up because he would be in prison today. I mean, aren’t we glad so many things have progressed past the typical OT situation?

    Now this is one comment I wished I had thought of. Applause!!!

  23. Wisdomchaser wrote:

    ” So, whoever wrote the book of Esther may have misunderstood Esther’s position in Xerxes’ household. She was acting from the position of Shir-Zan when she went to him pleading for her people.

    Wow! I did not know that. Time for me to do some reading. Thank you.

  24. GovPappy wrote:

    When you place yourself in their shoes and try to look through their eyes, they become people again, not Sunday school moral stories

    This is great insight. I remember a friend I had on the Navajo Reservation. She kept complaining that she missed Washington DC. I told her to stop looking at the Reservation and comparing it to DC. Instead, look at through the eyes of the Navajos and those who love it there. I did. I ended up loving it so much that I cried the day we moved back east.

  25. rhondajeannie wrote:

    ee you will be glad to know that I am about to ‘USURP’ a male only Presbytery (about 20 men), boy am I looking forward to this and I am going to use their own Code, that is there to protect them, against them.

    YAY!!! Usurp away and keep us posted on the battle!

  26. GovPappy wrote:

    I don’t even pick up on the little unspoken underlying assumptions

    I have been trained to look for the unstated presuppositions by interacting with people who have this POV. The ones who push this and hprofit by it are very slippery with their language, so you have to pay attebntion. The first one I noticed doing this was Grudem and then Ware and Owen BHLH. I don’t know who Bethany is, but she may well be like some young women I know. They believe what they have been told, and they have to say what is politically correct or they will be blackballed. If you say what is pleasing to the bosses, you get your articles published at TgC site. Margaret Kostenberger has a lot riding on the perpetuation of the myth she is pushing. It is just dishonest to say what she said in that quote. Her hubby is employed at the pleasure of Mohler, and he would be out of a job if she doesn’t act like the “woman who finds great joy” in her subordination. Of course, her subordination comes with a lot of goodies, unlike women who are not as privileged. I should know because I was there once.

  27. The Nightowl wrote:

    It wasn’t without consequences. Today’s celebrity preachers who cite David seem to think there should be no consequences for their sin.

    Well said!

  28. @ Divorce Minister:
    The saddest thing about the Driscoll mess is the number of people who bought into his baloney. We are talking seminary presidents, John Piper, etc. And they want us to respect there discernment?

  29. @ Mara:
    Think of it this way. Many men in TGC wouldn’t let Mary get up in the pulpit and say the words that she said to the angel. They would have to have a man do it.

  30. LInn wrote:

    There is a lot we don’t know about Esther, and where Scripture is silent, it is best not to speculate.

    Sometimes when Scripture is silent, we can look at the history of the period and get an idea of the role of women i that society.

  31. GovPappy wrote:

    It’s just as bad in the NT – because Luke recorded something Paul did without direct commentary on whether it was right or wrong, well, Paul was right and therefore our job is to discern why he was right and apply it to our lives. It’s very forced and unfair to what God has given us.

    While I currently live in a state somewhere between Christian and Agnostic, this is where I get perturbed at non-Christian critics of the Bible or God.

    Because the Bible, say, maybe records the story of a guy who steals candy from a baby, all these atheists on other sites run around saying,
    “See, what a terrible God if he exist!! He is okay with people stealing candy from babies!!11!!1 Even I’m more moral than the God of the Bible!”

    They never stop to consider that just because something is recorded as having happened in the Bible does not necessarily mean God was cool with it.

    More likely some of that stuff is in there to show us how horrible people can be at times and why the NT says we needed a Savior.

    But with some people, acknowledging that point is not as fun as going into anti-Christian or anti-Bible rants.

  32. dee wrote:

    YAY!!! Usurp away and keep us posted on the battle!

    Yes I certainly will and thank you for your ongoing support.

  33. The Jewish people celebrate Purim every year to honor Esther’s act of heroism and God’s deliverance of them through her. This is what really gets Driscoll and his ilk – a woman being honored for her bravery and courage, not her beauty.

  34. No problem in terms of role of women to look at history, but in terms of Esther’s early motivation for what she did, the Scripture doesn’t say much. We do know she was at the mercy of the king, but that is about all. Both Jobe and Driscoll get very carried away with interpreting what is not there.

  35. Mark Driscoll: Queen Esther was a slut.

    To Bee Jay Driscoll, ALL women are sluts/penis homes.

  36. Law Prof wrote:

    People like Driscoll get a cockeyed, ignorant idea in their heads and just think it’s from the Lord.

    Which head?
    Considering the source, I’d say the one below the belt.

  37. Wisdomchaser wrote:

    Xerxes, Esther’s husband, had a woman admiral. “Artemesia of Halicarnassius (now in modern western Turkey) one of Xerxes’ most capable admirals during the failed invasions of Greece in 480 BC. T

    Battle of Salamis, where the Persian navy was lured into a trap and pretty much wiped out in a coordinated ambush by the Combined Greek fleet at Salamis bay. Artemesia’s squadron was the only one get away without losses, fighting their way out of the trap. THAT was the source of the Shahanshah’s quote “My women have become men.”

  38. I find it extremely rude to speculate on Esther’s prowess in bed. The bible is silent on that and it is frankly none of our business. Remember, the search was for a new consort to replace the banished First Lady, not just a new bedfellow. Esther had a quality about her that the eunuch in charge of her recognised and led him to favour her above all the other maidens in his care. Maybe this is what the king noticed and that made Esther stand out amongst all the others. This part of her story reminds me of Scheherazade who, after her night with the king, managed to keep her head (if you got chosen to spend the night with that king your head got chopped off the next day to prevent you from being unfaithful to him) by telling him a story and then breaking off just when it got exciting.

  39. BTW, is anyone here familiar with David Kossoff’s retelling of Esther’s story? If not, do yourself the favour and get hold of a copy of his ‘Bible Stories’. What has stayed with most since hearing it read to me as a child, was his poignant reference to the Holocaust.

  40. They get their jollies dissing Esther, but let me see ……

    David has already been mentioned, as well as Solomon, Lot, the Levites.

    Abraham talked his wife into telling a half-truth because he was afraid she was so pretty that a king would kill Abraham just to have her.

    Moses (the baby in the basket, the man God chose to lead the nation of Israel out of bondage, the man credited with writing the first 5 books of the Bible, yes THAT Moses) was a murderer.

    Aaron made a golden calf for the people of Israel to worship.

    Samson was a conceited skirt chaser, or do I have him confused with Mark Driscoll?

    But they want to devote all that time and energy into picking on a girl who had little to no control over the decisions that were made!

  41. “Every single book in your Bible is written by a man.” Mark Driscoll

    Technically the words are from the Holy Spirit so the “men” are secretaries just transcribing the message. Kinda deflating, but then taking down Driscoll is just shooting fish in a barrel.

  42. Kemi wrote:

    Coming out of lurking to say isn’t there some debate about [the authorship of various biblescribshers]?

    Welcome out of lurking, first of all!

    You’re quite right in that this has up to now been a matter of considerable debate. But I think that debate is now over, because it seems that Mr Driskle has had another of his Revelations about it. You know, like the Voice that told him to run away from church discipline at Mars Hill instead of submitting to it like he’d always told everyone else to.

  43. I have always found it very amusing that when Al Mohler was installed as president of Southern Seminary his theme was taken from Esther: “For such a time as this.” For someone who has so little regard for women to take his “life verse” from the story of a women is quite ironic.

  44. LInn wrote:

    t in terms of Esther’s early motivation for what she did, the Scripture doesn’t say much.

    To me, it is clear. She did what she was told-just like most women of that era. She had little choice in the matter.

    “But Esther had kept secret her family background and nationality just as Mordecai had told her to do, for she continued to follow Mordecai’s instructions as she had done when he was bringing her up.”

  45. danlinrm wrote:

    n Al Mohler was installed as president of Southern Seminary his theme was taken from Esther: “For such a time as this.

    It is a little arrogant to compare himself to that situation as well.

  46. dee wrote:

    It is a little arrogant to compare himself to that situation as well.

    Indeed, but that is the essence of the man

  47. Estelle wrote:

    I find it extremely rude to speculate on Esther’s prowess in bed.

    You are not kidding!

    To me, this is just reflective of how Driscoll has worked tirelessly to bring our porn culture into the Church through his teachings on the Songs and other things. He brought porn culture in with it’s total disrespect for women and disregard for privacy.

    A couple’s sexuality is their own. It is not up to society to drag it out into the streets an become spectators.

    And how is a virgin supposed to know all the porn star tricks that Driscoll assumes and remain a virgin.

    He wanted women to be small and mousy in the public sphere and lionesses in bed, even the girls who had little to no experience per his teachings in the Songs. The perfect woman was a nymphomaniac. He focused on that rather than character and strength.

    The man’s views on women have been so screwed up and yet out Christian culture held him up as the ‘enlightened one’ when it comes to women and sex.
    That’s what should have taken him down and made him irrelevant long before the plagiarism and buying places on the NYT #1 best sellers list.

    But our Christian culture is more concerned with popularity, intellectual property, and money matters than with having a healthy and respectful view of women, womanhood, and sex.

    Sorry for the rant. I thought I was over it. But I guess I’m still mad at the supposed Christian leaders drooling over and chasing after Driscoll’s teachings that tickled men’s lust for porn.

  48. Bill M wrote:

    “Every single book in your Bible is written by a man.” Mark Driscoll

    Technically the words are from the Holy Spirit so the “men” are secretaries just transcribing the message.

    How does that differ from Automatic Writing a la Oahspe or Seth Speaks?

  49. Dee wrote:
    “Recently, I have become concerned by the rise of patriarchal based theology and what seems to be an attempt to blame women for problems that were caused by the men who dictated the rules of society.”

    Ali responds:
    I agree Dee. My family and I were driven to leave an average size First Baptist church in our suburb ( near the big metroplex) due to this issue. The pastor was doing a 4 week sermon series on the book of Ruth. It was outrageous the way the pastor blamed woman specifically the Moabite “loose and wild women” without looking at how the men in that culture abused and used the woman in that culture and time period. It was the woman’s fault they were not moral and tempting men. Even my mildly complemitarian husband could see the pastors conclusion as illogical and as pure blame shifting to the woman who had no power or protection in that culture. The pastor also used a shrill nagging voice to describe the voice of the women in the book. It was so very uncomfortable that my husband and I both cringed. After three weeks of sermons with these type of false interpretations we could not return to that church. We could not let our kids grow up in a church that defames and blames woman for system abuses by men. In our continued church hunt we have now been attending a United Methodist Church. For two folks who grew up in Southern Baptist / Bible Churches with a light judgemental view against the United Methodist Church it has been eye opening. Our family is being fed spiritually. Our kids are experiencing grace and joy at church versus rules. We are connecting with great believers in a Sunday school class were women and men share freely. This past Sunday we actually heard our first sermon preached by a woman. It caught the tender spots of my heart and reminded me that there is a place for women at God’s table.

  50. The Harsh Treatment of Women in the Old Testament

    Welcome to the world of Bronze Age Semitic Tribal Culture.

  51. Ali wrote:

    The pastor was doing a 4 week sermon series on the book of Ruth. It was outrageous the way the pastor blamed woman specifically the Moabite “loose and wild women” without looking at how the men in that culture abused and used the woman in that culture and time period.

    I assume Pastor was male?

  52. Dee, Thank you!!! Please write more about this important topic. I just attended a wedding in Wake Forest, filled with young seminarians from “you know where”. Neither the bride or groom has family there (everyone had to travel) but I guess a wedding is more holy next to said seminary. Maybe it’s the new “destination wedding” for the neo-kids!
    Anyway, after a ceremony filled with obey and submit for her and lead and take care of her for him, I felt like the bride was marrying her father, not her groom. I heard the word “gospel” at least ten times (lost count), but it was always used as an adjective before the word marrige. What I found interesting was the pastor never said what the gospel was. If I was an “outsider”, my take away would have been, “gospel” is some kind of role playing marriage that reflects the man being God and the bride being a church building. Sometimes God is called by the name Jesus, but we aren’t told who he is.
    Because I do know the gospel, I was even more disturbed. The ceremony made marriage into an idol that should make outsiders want to convert, because the couple are playing their roles perfectly. *sigh*. The groom was praised for being a man of God and the bride was praised for supporting him in his journey. Nothing was said about the couple’s goals, dreams, personalities, or gifts. I feel sad that they will struggle with conforming their personalities into these narrow dictated roles as they make their way through life together. I feel sadder for the bride whose young husband’s role is to be a superhero man of God (he is a seminary student). She will slowly disappear. That became clear when the pastor said that marriage will make two people become one person ( No, he didn’t use it as a metaphor). Sorry for the rant. Just needed to vent!

  53. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Bill M wrote:
    “Every single book in your Bible is written by a man.” Mark Driscoll
    Technically the words are from the Holy Spirit so the “men” are secretaries just transcribing the message.
    How does that differ from Automatic Writing a la Oahspe or Seth Speaks?

    Don’t forget, PAstor Piper, despite now saying Mars Hill was a disaster, gushed about MArk Driscoll preaching!!

  54. From Bethany Jenkins twitter feed from Jul 30th :

    “When we hide our faith, it’s only a matter of time before our true identity is revealed. Just ask Esther”

    As has been stated above, Ms Jenkins is reading into something that scripture does not delve into. Her “true identity” is one that saves her people and scripture does not comment on the morality of what led up to that.

    When all you have is a hammer…

  55. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    The Harsh Treatment of Women in the Old Testament
    Welcome to the world of Bronze Age Semitic Tribal Culture.

    The irony is that this treatment of women is alive and well in some parts of Middle East to this day. Saudi Arabia, the “great friend” of the US comes to mind!!

  56. This little phrase, quoted in the Gospel Coalition article, is really getting my goat:

    “combined with flawed decisions you made along the way”

    As Dee rightly asks in her excellent post (thank you Dee), what ‘flawed decisions’ did Esther make?? None that we know of. What are are seeing here, friends, is subtle, but extremely worrying, victim-blaming. More precisely, it’s shifting of blame from men (and the horrible patriarchal culture that they created and Esther lived in) to a woman. The woman is getting the blame here.

    That little phrase is the crux of all this.

  57. Ann wrote:

    If I was an “outsider”, my take away would have been, “gospel” is some kind of role playing marriage that reflects the man being God and the bride being a church building. Sometimes God is called by the name Jesus, but we aren’t told who he is.

    Very well put description of what they are really saying. I’ve been to several of these weddings as well, and your feelings were exactly the ones that Gramp3 and I have had every single time. There was no talk of the two becoming one as they work together as partners in mutual love and respect. Genuine unity, not the fake role-playing she disappears and becomes subsumed into him. Thank you for describing what they are teaching so well. How sad is it that a wedding where there are many people present who are not believers are presented with this false gospel rather than Christ, crucified and risen, who has brought reconciliation to all who believe. Christian marriage should look like that kind of reconciliation between Man and Woman whose unity was destroyed by sin. Not the fake “unity” which is really capitulation on the part of the woman and a denial of herself as created in God’s image. How sad that the young husband is joyous to give up a strong partner in exchange for a mirror for himself.

  58. GC wrote:

    I left a question on the TGC post asking what Esther’s “compromises” and “flawed decisions” were. I also noted that TGC seems to be intent on diminishing one of the few strong female characters in the Bible, as part of their overall effort to subordinate women as much as possible. I doubt the comment will ever see the light of day.

    Good comment. Did it see the light of day?

  59. @ Ann:

    Ann,

    I too have experienced this type of neocal destination wedding in Louisville, KY. It is really odd and concerning that a couple would marry at Southern Seminary when neither side of their families live there.

  60. @ Ann:
    Ranting and venting are always good here, and welcome!

    This makes me sad too – this is roughly the language of every wedding I’ve been to, including my own.

  61. dee wrote:

    @ Divorce Minister:
    The saddest thing about the Driscoll mess is the number of people who bought into his baloney. We are talking seminary presidents, John Piper, etc. And they want us to respect there discernment?

    These guys should have been calling Driscoll out on his errant teaching LONG before what eventually happened (i.e. he was booted out of the church he founded and the same church collapsed). It beggars belief that Piper et al continued to publically approve of Driscoll when he was spouting such drivel as the ridiculous stuff he said about Esther.

    Discernment??? My mother’s cat has more discernment than this lot.

    What is really sad is that the Gospel Glitterati is still given so much respect even when they’ve been shown to have exercised zero wisdom or discernment (on guys like Driscoll and Mahaney). Which calls into question the discernment of the wider church.

    Personally their continued support for Driscoll led to me losing any residual respect for Piper and Carson.

  62. LInn wrote:

    No problem in terms of role of women to look at history, but in terms of Esther’s early motivation for what she did, the Scripture doesn’t say much. We do know she was at the mercy of the king, but that is about all. Both Jobe and Driscoll get very carried away with interpreting what is not there.

    Exactly. When did Biblical interpretation get so sloppy?

  63. @ Gram3:
    The true gospel I its simplicity is offensive to the world. By shoe-horning marriage into the Gospel, marriage becomes equally offensive. How many are they turning away??

  64. May wrote:

    What is really sad is that the Gospel Glitterati is still given so much respect even when they’ve been shown to have exercised zero wisdom or discernment (on guys like Driscoll and Mahaney).

    In that world, the only discernment necessary is whether or not Female Subordination and Calvinism is being upheld. If it were all about the true Gospel, there would be non-Calvinists and Mutualists among their number. There would be sound female pastors and teachers. You can look at their membership and see what they really value and also what they think the Gospel is and what the essentials of the Gospel are.

  65. About concubinage:

    The incidences in the life of Empress Dowager Cixi of China have some similarities to the story of Esther in that Cixi was chosen as a concubine of the emperor (a lesser position than wife of Xerxes) while quite young. An historical novel has been written about this, and the novel contains apparently some accurate insights about how such a situation would have played out as concubine and all. Anyhow, Cixi controlled the rulers of China for almost half a century–actually, not just in the novel. Wiki has lots of information on this. Why mention this? Because we understand very little about the nuances of concubinage-the good or the bad or the indifferent. If I am correct, were not two of the women who had children for Jacob actually concubines? I am not defending concubinage and more than I would defend polygamy, but I am saying that we probably know very little of how it plays out from culture to culture and from era to era.

  66. About Esther:

    Let me agree with those who say that we do not know what Esther may have been thinking at the time when she was groomed and trained as possible wife of the king, but whatever it was she pulled it off well enough to land for herself a position of some opportunity to save her people. Perhaps Mordecai was just obeying the royal decree out of fear, but he was himself involved at court and perhaps he saw some political opportunity as a possibility if Esther got into a position at court-whatever the level of that position might be. Perhaps Esther was an unwilling actor in this story, or perhaps she saw some opportunity for her family to hold some standing at court. I lean toward the latter view as a real possibility because she co-operated with her groomers in the harem and the king was impressed. It is hard to see how that would happen if she had been totally unwilling to play the part. She did have some competition after all. And if the position of women was dire, then surely she would have seen her chance for a better life for herself in the possibility of being wife to the king. This does not make her a slut, but it does make her wise.

    About Bathsheba:

    The jury is out. The arguments are not convincing. Did not David commend Abigail who ‘kept me from sinning’ and might not he have commended Bathsheba had she demurred and ‘kept him from sinning?’ We don’t know.

  67. GovPappy wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    The true gospel I its simplicity is offensive to the world. By shoe-horning marriage into the Gospel, marriage becomes equally offensive. How many are they turning away??

    I think that a Christian marriage can be a picture of the Gospel. But I think the way that happens is that the husband and wife each continue to grow up into maturity in Christ and come to have increasingly the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit of Christ restores the unity between husband and wife because then they are both tuned to the pitch of Christ’s voice and follow his direction as they become better imitators of him.

    Certainly the current teaching among the Female Subordinationists that the Gospel is somehow pictured by the wife being subordinate to her husband is ridiculous if not heretical because what underlies that thinking is that ESS is essential to the Gospel.

  68. What I just posted about David and Abigail got tacked on when I had intended to delete it. That was an error. What I meant to say was this.

    Was there not an instance in the bible where a king appropriated Sarah into his harem and later remonstrated with Abraham in that the king had not been informed that Sarah was married? I think the king in that story said that God kept him from sinning (carnal knowledge) and he blamed Abraham for the position he had been put in.

    With Bathsheba’s husband off to war, would David have refrained from sinning if Bathsheba had told him that she was married? We don’t know. We don’t know what conversation went on. But when David was confronted by Nathan nothing was said of David being deceived in any way at any time, which may indicate that he knew she was married. She told him? If so did she agree to the tryst or not? Perhaps he knew the family already, since the lived in the same neighborhood? We don’t know. Maybe David was not a man of the same character of the king in the Sarah story? Maybe the event was consensual and maybe not. I will withhold opinion as to any culpability or complicity or not of Bathsheba since we do not know. To portray her as a total passive ditz though may not be correct since she ended up queen mother and that included some royal politics of a high degree.

  69. okrapod wrote:

    To portray her as a total passive ditz though may not be correct since she ended up queen mother and that included some royal politics of a high degree.

    I don’t think she was a passive ditz. I do think her options were limited if David demanded her services. I’ve not heard too many say that she intentionally seduced David. And even if her behavior was provocative (and I see no evidence for that) David did not have to summon her. I think that David, despite his many great sins, recognized character when he saw it in the instances of Abigail, Nathan, and possibly Bathsheba. Or maybe he married Bathsheba out of guilt or obligation under the law. We don’t know, but that hasn’t stopped people from calling her a seductress with no evidence at all. It is assumed.

  70. @ okrapod:
    He knew Bathsheba’s husband since he was in a position of command. Also they were neighbors or he wouldn’t have seen her

  71. Dee wrote:

    @ okrapod:
    He knew Bathsheba’s husband since he was in a position of command. Also they were neighbors or he wouldn’t have seen her

    Also the City of David (the neighborhood) was quite small and steep, so it isn’t difficult to imagine David walking along the top of his palace and seeing Bathsheba bathing. I believe based on no textual evidence that it was a ritual bath and that perhaps that is why David felt “safe” summoning her since he would not be *ritually* defiled by her. And, if that is the case, it may also be why she conceived so readily, given the timeline of ritual uncleanness and purification.

  72. May wrote:

    These guys should have been calling Driscoll out on his errant teaching LONG before what eventually happened (i.e. he was booted out of the church he founded and the same church collapsed). It beggars belief that Piper et al continued to publically approve of Driscoll when he was spouting such drivel as the ridiculous stuff he said about Esther.

    The He-Man Woman-Haters Club sticks together.
    “One Hand Washes the Other…”

  73. Ali wrote:

    @ Ann:

    Ann,

    I too have experienced this type of neocal destination wedding in Louisville, KY. It is really odd and concerning that a couple would marry at Southern Seminary when neither side of their families live there.

    Sacred Site.
    Holy of Holies.

  74. Ann wrote:

    What I found interesting was the pastor never said what the gospel was.

    By not defining it and keeping it a meaningless cipher, every listener gets to define it in their own image. A blank mirror where they can see themselves — a Bella Swan of concepts.

    If I was an “outsider”, my take away would have been, “gospel” is some kind of role playing marriage that reflects the man being God and the bride being a church building.

    And what happens when the church building needs to be remodeled, rebuilt, demolished, or sold off because it’s surplus to requirements?

  75. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    Don’t forget, PAstor Piper, despite now saying Mars Hill was a disaster, gushed about MArk Driscoll preaching!!

    “These five Kings said one to another:
    ‘King unto King o’er the world is Brother’…”
    — G.K.Chesterton, “Ballad of the Battle of Gibeon”

    And Flutterhands Piper has always been the Gushy Teenage Girl type.
    Harley Quinn gushing over her Joker.

  76. okrapod wrote:

    Maybe the event was consensual and maybe not.

    The immense power differential between David and Bathsheba makes “consent” a moot point. She could acquiesce nicely; if not, it was within David’s power to do just about anything to her or her husband. Whether he would have taken retribution had she denied him is irrelevant.

  77. okrapod wrote:

    …I am not defending concubinage any more than I would defend polygamy, but I am saying that we probably know very little of how it plays out from culture to culture and from era to era.

    Whereupon Gram3 wrote what might, I hope fairly, be abridged to:

    I think that a Christian marriage can be a picture of the Gospel… The Spirit of Christ restores the unity between husband and wife because then they are both tuned to the pitch of Christ’s voice and follow his direction as they [increasingly] become better imitators of him.

    You know, I wonder whether we might not know more than we think about how concubinage worked in practice.

    We know the lyrics fairly well: In the image of God He created them: male and female he created them… God blessed them and said to them [PLURAL], “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule…

    There’s no evidence that Eve was banned from tilling the ground, transplanting, cultivating, or otherwise Pipering either the garden or the wider planet. Thus, when God pronounces the curse over Adam – Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it etc etc the effects of that curse applied to both Adam and Eve. It’s not as though Adam had to graft for his food but the ground wasn’t cursed for Eve and she could plant and cultivate away happily.

    Suppose for a moment that, likewise, the curse over Eve affected both of them. Her desire would be for him, but he would rule over her. Regardless of what we do with translating the word “desire”, what that amounts to in practice is a never-ending struggle for power between them. Each of them, corrupted by sin, is rendered weak and insecure and needs the comfort of power and control to create the illusion of security. When that battle is played out through physical strength, it seems Adam has been given a headstart. But that’s not the only way to win a fight, as numerous martial arts, battle strategies and, of course, Empress Dowager Cixi have shown. And btw, it’s not just that a woman must use technique to out-fight a man. A small man must also use technique to fight a bigger and heavier man. (And on the occasionally-touted topic of the so-called “Jezebel Spirit” – yes, many church settings do have manipulative “Jezebels” pulling the strings, and some of them are women. They need dealing with, same as the men. Sorry.)

    But into all of this comes the Cross, the blood of Jesus, his resurrection and ascension for us, and the coming of the Holy Spirit. I have reason to believe that Jesus did not simply sweeten the curse a bit, but that he destroyed it. So it’s not like Adam still gets to indulge his sin-filled, carnal longing for control but without the destructive consequences, and Eve is psychologically anaesthetised so that she now delights in being treated like a ****ing infant.

    More later, but I need to go and work on some other stuff that, all being well, will help advance Lesley professionally. God knows (and I say that reverently), Scotland needs her ability.

  78. Dee wrote:

    I, too, along with many others believe [Bathsheba] was in a Mikva.

    Was that a Ford Mikva or a Chevrolet Mikva?

  79. Pingback: Linkathon! » PhoenixPreacher | PhoenixPreacher

  80. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    I definitely think there is a power dynamic between people due to sin. In marriage it looks like it is limited to husbands and wives. And I also agree that there is “hard” physical power, and there is also “soft” non-physical power. As I’ve said before, abuse of power is a crime of opportunity and is not particular to one class of humans.

    I, for one, have not noticed the aphids or weeds or rocks fleeing from my garden in my presence.

  81. Dee wrote:

    As of 5 min ago, there are no comments under Jenkin’s post.

    You’re not surprised are you? These folks will brook no dissent or disagreement whatsoever. Any such comment will never see the light of day. On the other hand those comments which offer gushing praise for Jenkins’s ‘insight’ must be culled over for the best gush.

  82. “Every single book in your Bible is written by a man.” Mark Driscoll

    And his successor at the Acts 29 wheel, Matt Chandler, says “I preach to men. I go after the men.”

    New Calvinism is yet another form of religious patriarchy, no matter how the young, restless and reformed spin complementarianism.

    I wonder if the new & improved (?) Mark Driscoll will continue to preach like that as he launches his unrepentant comeback in Phoenix? What will Acts 30 look like? Esther “came into the world for such a time as this” … Driscoll tried to invent his own world to come into – I hope he is over that.

  83. What has happened to these younger ladies? How are they being ” hoodwinked ” into being second class citizens….even worse, the possibility of being second class citizens of heaven?

    Am I missing something here?

  84. Not yet.
    May wrote:

    GC wrote:

    I left a question on the TGC post asking what Esther’s “compromises” and “flawed decisions” were. I also noted that TGC seems to be intent on diminishing one of the few strong female characters in the Bible, as part of their overall effort to subordinate women as much as possible. I doubt the comment will ever see the light of day.

    Good comment. Did it see the light of day?

  85. @ Bill M:

    That was the same point I made higher up thread too. Sometimes some of the gender complementarians make far too much out of a person’s gender in theology related issues.

  86. K.D. wrote:

    What has happened to these younger ladies? How are they being ” hoodwinked ” into being second class citizens….even worse, the possibility of being second class citizens of heaven?
    Am I missing something here?

    Based solely on my interaction with young women in a highly Female Subordinationist church, I believe that the vast majority are motivated by a desire to please God. They have implicit trust in their pastors, and they believe what they say without checking. It sounds good and right to them. On the negative side, there is also the appeal of having a husband who is taught that everything is his responsibility. That is the origin, IMO, of their ecstatic proclamations of how “freeing” it is to be under male authority. Some of them may look at the man-boys around and think that Female Subordinationism is the answer to the immaturity they see around them. Naturally they don’t see what the men see which is a lot of female immaturity as well. In short, I think it makes them feel safe and secure. Real freedom can be scary. Which is why a lot of people would like to continue to be coddled teenagers or college students. Even when they are 40.

  87. While we are on the subject of sexual behavior when there is an imbalance of power. I have seen more than one woman offer ‘benefits’ to some man who was in a position to do her ‘favors’ assuming that she could get the ‘favors’ she wanted that way. Once that would be a professor and twice an employer. More accurately, I have heard them claim that they did. I obviously was not there on site when whatever happened happened if indeed it happened. Now, given the imbalance of power (and I am not sure there is all that much imbalance if he can be enticed to do something stupid like that) would one say that she enticed him into raping her? Or would one say that sometimes it is more complicated than that?

  88. Gram3 wrote:

    K.D. wrote:
    What has happened to these younger ladies? How are they being ” hoodwinked ” into being second class citizens….even worse, the possibility of being second class citizens of heaven?
    Am I missing something here?
    Based solely on my interaction with young women in a highly Female Subordinationist church, I believe that the vast majority are motivated by a desire to please God. They have implicit trust in their pastors, and they believe what they say without checking. It sounds good and right to them. On the negative side, there is also the appeal of having a husband who is taught that everything is his responsibility. That is the origin, IMO, of their ecstatic proclamations of how “freeing” it is to be under male authority. Some of them may look at the man-boys around and think that Female Subordinationism is the answer to the immaturity they see around them. Naturally they don’t see what the men see which is a lot of female immaturity as well. In short, I think it makes them feel safe and secure. Real freedom can be scary. Which is why a lot of people would like to continue to be coddled teenagers or college students. Even when they are 40.

    You are right about the maturity. There are a number among the Millinials who still act like they are 14-15 yrs old. Even when they hit 30.
    Speaking of ” please God” was at a UPC funeral yesterday. The pastor(s) were both convinced that the lady had made it to heaven due to her ” Peanut brittle making for the church.” Works based theology at its best( or worse.)

  89. dee wrote:

    danlinrm wrote:
    n Al Mohler was installed as president of Southern Seminary his theme was taken from Esther: “For such a time as this.
    It is a little arrogant to compare himself to that situation as well.

    Giggle, giggle. Can’t you just see Al Mohler swapping roles with Esther!

  90. Speaking of King David (full disclosure – we’re not related 😛 ), I’ve often wondered about the story of him and his first wife, Michal.

    Michal, of course, was King Saul’s daughter. When Saul tried to kill his son-in-law, Michal aided David’s escape (because she loved him, I Samuel 18:20).

    Afterward, Saul gave Michal to another (Paltiel) as a political favor. Years passed, and King David gained more wives and concubines. After King Saul died, David reclaimed Michal, likely due to her lineage.

    Later, when the Ark of the Covenant was brought to Jerusalem, King David led the procession, wearing an priest’s ephod (2 Samuel 6:14), dancing “with all his might.” Some interpret this as if he were scantilly-clad, yet another (I Chronicles 15:27) indicates he wasn’t. But Michal’s reaction seems to favor the former.

    Michal was watching from the palace. 2 Samuel 6:16 says “she despised him in her heart.” So she confronted her husband saying

    [quote]How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, going around half-naked in full view of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would![/quote]

    David replied

    [quote]It was before the Lord, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the Lord’s people Israel—I will celebrate before the Lord. 22 I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honor.[/quote]

    King David was obviously displeased. The chapter concludes with

    [quote]And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death[/quote].

    Some say, God was displeased with Michal for being bitter toward her Godly husband, and thus closed her womb. Of course, nothing in the text says her barrenness was the result of divine punishment. More likely, David simply stopped having marital relations with her.

    Michal’s bitterness is understandable when you consider she was David’s first wife, and that she loved him. They were separated and she was given to Paltiel in an illegal marriage. When David took her back, she was one of many wives and concubines. IMHO, her reaction to his dancing is simple: she was envious of his joy and happiness when she felt just the opposite.

    Perhaps another example of OT figures abuse and mistreatment of a woman?

  91. @ David:
    David didn’t just reclaim Michal — David made a political deal with Abner, in which Abner was to bring Michal to David.
    There is not mention of Michal having any children by David. But apparently, Michal did have children with Phaltiel, the man to whom Saul gave her. II Sam. 21:8 mentions “5 sons of Michal, daughter of Saul”. Five sons that David “delivered into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill ….. and were put to death …”

  92. @ okrapod:
    There is definitely that going on, and I have seen it in the corporate world. There has also been the power to say “do this or else that” so power can be played all kinds of ways and look very different.

  93. Max wrote:

    And his successor at the Acts 29 wheel, Matt Chandler, says “I preach to men. I go after the men.”

    This is why I cam concerned about things at Acts 29.

  94. Gram3 wrote:

    Based solely on my interaction with young women in a highly Female Subordinationist church, I believe that the vast majority are motivated by a desire to please God. They have implicit trust in their pastors, and they believe what they say without checking. It sounds good and right to them. On the negative side, there is also the appeal of having a husband who is taught that everything is his responsibility. That is the origin, IMO, of their ecstatic proclamations of how “freeing” it is to be under male authority.

    Lambs led to the slaughter???

  95. dee wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    Was that a Ford Mikva or a Chevrolet Mikva?
    Mitsubishi Mikva-It has a certain charm.

    A modern day mikva would be a hot tub or a jacuzzi, not a Mitsubishi!!!

  96. Wow, David was a real jerk. I’ve enjoyed reading this blog article, because it really points out just how much horrifically anti-woman material there is in the Bible. Of course, there are some excuses made for the Bible, in the context of, “Well, these were freaking bronze-age goat herders, so that’s pretty much what you’d expect from a culture like that.” – but the fact is that if you take the Bible as true, then the big-g God was setting down the rules for these people. Like, he literally talked to people, had them write down very specific rules, down to the issue of mixed fabric. But he didn’t address the issue of not treating women and children like property, because, well, that’d be too much to ask of people from their cultural background.

  97. K.D. wrote:

    You are right about the maturity. There are a number among the Millinials who still act like they are 14-15 yrs old. Even when they hit 30.

    Not just Millenials (i.e. the Baby Boomer Keeper Kids/Mini-Mes). I’m a late-period Baby Boomer, and there are a LOT of 14-15 year-olds in sexually active Sixty-something bodies out there.

  98. Nancy2 wrote:

    Giggle, giggle. Can’t you just see Al Mohler swapping roles with Esther!

    Especially when it’s Esther’s turn with Padishah/Shahanshah Xerxes…

    (Something I’ve always wondered: the name “Esther” sounds a lot like “Ishtar”, the Chaldean fertility goddess; could Esther’s name have been a Hebraization of the Chaldean name?)

  99. Muff Potter wrote:

    You’re not surprised are you? These folks will brook no dissent or disagreement whatsoever. Any such comment will never see the light of day. On the other hand those comments which offer gushing praise for Jenkins’s ‘insight’ must be culled over for the best gush.

    Just like Comrade Stalin’s Official Media.
    Or Baba Saddam’s.
    Or Kim Jong-whatever’s.
    Or the courtiers around the Sun King.
    Or the Senators around Caesar Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Commodus, Eleglabius…

    “With a ruler, you can lay the flattery on with a trowel.”
    — Benjamin Disraeli

  100. @ Gram3:
    The guy who wrote Jesus Through Midfle Eastern Eyes (widely read and a big seller) has himself convinced that Bathsheba was a shameless hussy who did everything in her power to make sure that David saw her and would want her.

    It is pure speculation (possibly fantady re. wanton eomen?), but sadly, he has a lot of traction in evangelical circles, even though his book is mostly speculation and reading the present back into the past.

  101. Richard wrote:

    Wow, David was a real jerk. I’ve enjoyed reading this blog article, because it really points out just how much horrifically anti-woman material there is in the Bible. Of course, there are some excuses made for the Bible, in the context of, “Well, these were freaking bronze-age goat herders, so that’s pretty much what you’d expect from a culture like that.” – but the fact is that if you take the Bible as true, then the big-g God was setting down the rules for these people. Like, he literally talked to people, had them write down very specific rules, down to the issue of mixed fabric. But he didn’t address the issue of not treating women and children like property, because, well, that’d be too much to ask of people from their cultural background.

    Son of a gun. That’s pretty much the question, isn’t it. I can’t ignore that anymore.

    I don’t swear, but I want to.

  102. @ Nancy2:
    Well, not a *real* mikveh. They are enclosed, and the source has to be a naturally-occuring body of water. Among the Orthodox, both men and women use them. They are simple pools, but obviously not for swimming or any purpose other than ritual cleansing.

  103. @ okrapod:
    Yes, there are people who do this, but do you think that the women in question in this example were, in evety way, on an equal footing with the men they approached.

    My hunch is “no,” and that in itself would constitute an abuse of power.

  104. Richard wrote:

    Wow, David was a real jerk.

    Maybe it is more complicated than that. I had never heard that Michal had children so I checked out some stuff just now, thinking that maybe David killed her sons for spite. No. And maybe it was not her sons. I checked more than one translation at biblegateway and I check a website called jewish women’s archive. Here is what I found.

    Michal had an older sister named Merab, so they say. Merab was married to Ariel. Michal was married to Paltiel. The question is whose sons were killed? And why? Two jewish manuscripts and the septuagint say Merab and other manuscripts say Michal.

    The KJV and the NIV differ on this.

    “and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:” KJV

    together with the five sons of Saul’s daughter Merab,[a] whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite NIV

    Note that KJV says that Michal “brought up” Ariel’s sons, while NIV says that Merab bore these sons to Ariel. And note that the NIV apparently is following the septuagint? in whose sons they were. Neither translation says that Michal bore these sons.

    This seems important to me because in some animal societies the new dominant male kills the young of the male he displaces when he takes over. I thought surely David did not do that.

    So, the story is that Saul had betrayed the Gibeonites and David was letting them avenge themselves and what they requested was the death of seven male offspring of Saul. David turned them over to the Gibeonites and they were hanged. Why would David do that? The bible says that there was a famine in the land for three years and when David inquired of the Lord he believed that he was told that it was because of how Saul betrayed the Gibeonites.

    To me this looks like the sort of barbarity that went on in that day, and the sort of barbarity that still goes on in various situations today if the media are to be believed.

  105. @ numo:

    Well, yes I think the women were in control of the situation all around. They took advantage of weak and foolish men and then went around and bragged about it to the rest of us to make themselves look good I suppose. I would have thought that if they intended blackmail they would have said nothing, but the women were just as foolish as the men to go down that road.

  106. @ okrapod:
    OK, but I think you said that there was a professor and a couple of employers. Still a power imbalance, because those men could grant “favors” and the women were using sex to get those “favors.”

  107. numo wrote:

    My hunch is “no,” and that in itself would constitute an abuse of power.

    Likely so numes, likely so. But I don’t think it was okrapod’s intent to imply that Hadassah was on anything even approaching an equal footing with Xerxes. I think she was merely pointing out that toxic power dynamics are not confined solely to the male gender.
    I’ve been round’ the sun a few times and I’ve seen women both young and old who are real pieces of work and pure Machiavelli with power.

  108. @ Muff Potter:

    Women in most cultures are not permitted any real, direct power, which is why some resort to passive aggressive catty schemes or to using their bodies.

    So I still say men are largely at fault for that.

    Allow women to be just as direct and assertive as men and stop calling them b’s for doing so, and we’d probably see some reduction in the passive aggressive stuff and so on.

  109. numo wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Her Hebrew name was Hadassah. Says so right in the text.

    Then why is she known as Esther?
    Did she have a Chaldean name as well as a Hebrew name and in English she’s known by the Chaldean one?

  110. @ numo:

    We just see the power distribution in a somewhat different light. We will have to leave it at that. I see that he had something she wanted and she had something he wanted, and after all was said and done it could have cost his his job. I think that puts ‘him’ in the more vulnerable position. She had the greater bargaining chip as I see it. I understand that you do not see it that way. I am comfortable with the fact that you do not see it that way. But I do.

  111. @ okrapod:
    You make good points, and I don;t disagree with them, but you are talking about people in a heirarchical [sp?] system(s), no? That’s all I’m trying to get at.

  112. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:
    Don’t forget, PAstor Piper, despite now saying Mars Hill was a disaster, gushed about MArk Driscoll preaching!!
    “These five Kings said one to another:
    ‘King unto King o’er the world is Brother’…”
    — G.K.Chesterton, “Ballad of the Battle of Gibeon”
    And Flutterhands Piper has always been the Gushy Teenage Girl type.
    Harley Quinn gushing over her Joker.

    Well, if you read what Flutterhands has to say now, you may be overstating that it was a disaster.

    http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/reflections-on-mark-driscoll-and-the-mars-hill-implosion

    It seems that he mainly sees defective leadership. I think I saw him once mention sin in the interview. He does say it was a defeat for the Gospel and a victory for Satan, but you may be overstating how big a negative he feels Mark Driscoll’s ministry was. Now, if you are talking about the recent Supreme Court decision, that may be a disaster.
    We should remember, as well that we are all defective. Mr. Driscoll is defective, Mr. Piper is defective, you and I are defective. All churches are defective.
    Also, apparently Mr. Piper did not have much influence as he would have liked. He may feel he has more influence in other areas, like going after Greg Boyd. But apparently he had little influence with Mr. Driscoll.
    Finally, the main thing to take away from what Piper is saying, is that, in spite of leaders being defective and failing; people should not walk away from Jesus, or Reformed Theology, or complementarianism, or the church!

  113. Gram3 wrote:

    Based solely on my interaction with young women in a highly Female Subordinationist church, I believe that the vast majority are motivated by a desire to please God. They have implicit trust in their pastors, and they believe what they say without checking. It sounds good and right to them. On the negative side, there is also the appeal of having a husband who is taught that everything is his responsibility.

    Gram, I can personally tell you there is at least one female who is quite happy to have all the responsibility placed on the man. It is appealing to some people to be able to demand that someone else be responsible for all the hard decisions, all the bills, etc. And, yes this makes the females look awfully immature.

  114. Hearing the Esther is a slut nonsense from Mark Driscoll is bad. Having women pastors promoting it within the church is even worse. Gateway is hosting a new series this September (Sept 10, 17 and 24) called “Pink Equip: Esther Gone Wild!” This is a direct reference to the Joe Francis reality porn movies called “Girls Gone Wild”, where mostly young, inebriated college girls take off their clothes, dance suggestively with some even simulating sex acts, all for a moment of celebrity. Creator “Joe Francis has, at various times, been convicted of tax evasion, bribery, false imprisonment, assault causing great bodily injury, dissuading a witness, record-keeping violations and has pleaded no contest to child abuse and prostitution.” What a role model to try to emulate ladies. Well done good and faithful servants. https://www.facebook.com/gatewayPINK/posts/10153240621954465 The Pink ladies have a long, lewd and bawdy history of being naughty in the name of Jesus for their own amusement. Next Spring they are renting the Ft Worth Convention Center for their big conference because over 11,000 “Christian” ladies can’t get enough of these Esther Gone Wild type events. They will also simulcast and broadcast on Daystar in order to spread their message.
    .
    The “Esther Gone Wild” series is there to juice up the ladies in preparation to the Gateway tithe paid Women’s Pink Cruise where Debbie Morris gets to use tithe money to take 8 of her BFF’s on a Caribbean cruise the first week of November. The ladies get to partay on their own private island between drinking, flirting, gambling and shopping in Nassau with their 6,843 square foot Vegas-style Casino Royale® and 8 bars and lounges with a guaranteed “personable mixologist”. The third largest church in the U.S. is touting the “Esther is a wild woman and so are we” ethos because Esther knew how to have a goooooood time and that’s all that matters in the end.
    .
    Don’t worry at the end of each Carnivalesque night Kari Jobe will sing her version of Hallelujah, a song written by Jewish, Zen Buddhist Monk Leonard Cohen about sex, that refers to some of the other “loose” women in the bible (as Dee covered above), thus making it a suitable worship song. Jeff Buckley who famously covered the song called it “a hallelujah to the orgasm”. Read into the song what you’d like, but this is how the song writer and singer describe the song. This is what passes as godly behavior at the third largest church in America. You can watch the ladies swaying in hyper spirituality to the orgasm song here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bUPXLqB1Po
    .
    It would be less tragic if this was some small fringe church, as opposed to one whose services are broadcasted to over 200 countries and 100 million homes several times a week. Heaven help us all from churches that openly have Esther equated to a Joe Francis girl by a bunch of 50-60 year old grandma pastors. I still remember a time when the local grannies stern looks and tutting is what prevented such shenanigans. Now they are the ordained Chiefs of Naughty Codswallop. Lord have mercy.

  115. @ numo:

    Well, yes and no. Based solely on my own experience on the job with the gov, it looked like the union held the ultimate power. But the adjudication officer certainly had a lot of decision making power and the regional office director even more. I have seen the union back them down however and that right frequently. I think that the charts would look definitely hierarchical but I do not think that represents the real power-that is what I am trying to say. As to how some professor would survive having to explain selling grades for sex-where ever he was on some hierarchical scale (and I don’t know that much about how that system works) again I don’t think that kind of power goes with that job. For example the flap at UNC chapel hill recently about giving out grades to athletes–people did not survive that too well. I believe that universities themselves have power, but I am not sure how that filters down to the teaching staff.

    In the limited cases that I knew about nothing bad happened to anybody because of any of it. It might as well have been a parlor game when it all settled down. For that matter, perhaps it was just that to the people involved. But nobody raped anybody, and that was my point.

  116. okrapod wrote:

    Now, given the imbalance of power (and I am not sure there is all that much imbalance if he can be enticed to do something stupid like that)… [etc]

    I think this highlights the problems with jumping to broad conclusions about where exactly the balance of power lies in any given situation. The factors that can give an individual power are many and complex.

    Among the most disturbing abuses of power to my mind are those cases in which teachers report pupils openly threatening them with malicious allegations of sexual impropriety. Until recently, if that happened, the teacher had no protection at all; they could (and usually would) be named and shamed before even a preliminary investigation had taken place. Once that happened, of course, it would matter little that the teacher would eventually be found innocent; their career was destroyed. The reason they disturb me so much is that they involve children abusing the very power that was designed to protect children who lacked that kind of confidence.

    Ultimately, an abuser is an abuser. (S)He might be a respected celebrity or pillar of the community, secretly grooming and abusing children. Those abusers routinely tell their victims, go ahead and complain – nobody will believe you. But in the cases above, the pupil could say to the teacher: I only have to complain, and everyone will believe me.

    If you can get people to believe you, so that they support you, you have power. Often, that’s proven to be a good thing: abuse victims have been heard, and abusers brought to justice. In other words, the vulnerable have been given the power to protect themselves. The problems really occur when we create a culture that doesn’t mind sacrificing a few innocent victims for the greater good. In that case, we create soft targets, and soft targets attract sociopaths.

  117. Here is the promo video for the Gateway Church all-female hedonistic vacation.
    https://vimeo.com/125169119

    Full details here:
    http://www.pinkimpactcruise.com/

    Who wants to go to a private island with Debbie Morris and the “Pink Team”?
    Aren’t we all deserving of luxurious spa treatment like Queen Esther?

    If you go straight to royalcaribbean.com you can book a room directly on this same boat for the same dates and destinations for only $261 per person; yet via Gateway’s special website, they charge you $525 – double!!! What are they doing with the excess markup money? Well, somebody has to pay for the free vacation for the Pink Team (salaried Gateway employees), right?

    http://www.pinkimpactcruise.com/artist/pink-team

  118. I commented earlier about the wedding this weekend in Wake Forest. I appreciate the responses. What makes me so sad is her older sister was married in a similar fashion a few years ago (different venue, same type of ceremony). One difference is her father got up before the church and gave a speech about his daughter’s purity and then gave over her purity ring to her groom!!! I can not imagine how all the “unpure” single women attending felt. I felt like I was at an auction. Sadly for the bride, her husband cheated on her and left her high and dry after a year and a half. Her family and church “pursued” him for almost a year. He finally threatened a restraining order. Fortunately, she has found herself a wonderful man and will remarry soon. My last comment: It is so challenging to live in the same town as family!!! They have all been drinking the same kool-aid for years. My son is getting married in a few months and-gasp- we will be serving wine. Pray for my patience. What makes it harder is I am the only female in a family of several brothers who are raising their daughters in this manner (including the two weddings I mentioned). Only my husband is empathic to my fear for my nieces’ futures.

  119. @ Will M:
    The thing is that the System cannot deliver what it promises because only the Holy Spirit can produce that in the life of a male or a female. The System will not guarantee the Perfect Husband or the Perfect Wife, but it will attract people who want to have complete power or people who want no responsibility. The Law is for the immature, and it always has been. Why these “leaders” want to keep the people immature is a question that is not asked in those churches. At least I never heard it asked.

  120. Ann wrote:

    Sadly for the bride, her husband cheated on her and left her high and dry after a year and a half. Her family and church “pursued” him for almost a year. He finally threatened a restraining order. Fortunately, she has found herself a wonderful man and will remarry soon.

    I certainly hope he turns out to be a wonderful man. There used to be a term which I will not use for what the first husband did. But I blame the father, too, because he, in effect, made a market for his daughter’s “purity” and a guy was willing to pay a small price to have that. Then he was off to the next one. It is a sick, sick system where women are objects to be used by men who claim to be protecting them, but the lure is powerful. I’m so sorry for the complications brought into your life and the lives of your extended family by this false teaching. It would seem that a wise man would learn from what happened to his daughter. And all of the other males in the family as well.

  121. I appreciate your passion for the equitable treatment and respect of women in any context, including and especially in the church. However, your characterizations and understanding of the context of the cultures your asserting about isn’t just misleading, it’s wrong. If you’re going to respond to the interpretations of Scripture that you don’t agree with, I suggest you make sure you have better support for your “facts”. I had it in mind to respond to the errors in your post, but they’re too numerous! For brevity I will grab one from early in your article:
    “this was about one thing for everyone involved and that was making the king happy. If the king wasn’t happy, everyone involved would die.   She had ZERO right of refusal unless she wanted a straight ticket to eternity”
    Youve actually contradicted your own point. You said we know precisely why Esther doesnt reveal her heritage – because Mordecai has told her not to. If this is true then its not really about appeasing the king its about Mordecai. However this doesnt make sense either because the king has no reason to have a problem with her heritage (the plan to persecute the Israelites has not yet been hatched). You’re also asserting that she has more obedience to Mordecai (who isn’t threatening her with her life) and is swaying her more than the king? This doesnt make any logical sense. Finally there is obviously some element of choice on the part of Esther to discern what she should or should not say. If she’s a mindless obedient zombie then why does she not “obey” Mordecai when he insists she must seek an audience with the king?

    There are many holes in your interpretation, the problem is above all your filter insists that you read it with a mysoginists lens. It is quite clear that abusive churches and leadership have hurt you in the past, but misleading so many by propogating your pain into Biblical interpretation and commentary is both unfortunate and wrong.

  122. @ LT:
    Hey, the song “Hallelujah” has been recorded by many different people, in many different version, with more than a few rewritten lyrics. It became especially popular due to its use in the movie Shrek.

    I think Jeff Buckley’s comments are veryspecific to Buckle. As for Cohen’s mingling of sacred and secular imagery, he’s been doing that for his entire career. I am not sure why you make a point of saying “Jewish Zen Buddhist monk,” but given the context, it seems very disrespectful.

    What a comment you left.

  123. @ Gram3:
    The whole system devolves into a power play. My daughter, unfortunately, has a lot of contact with women in this nonsense. I have put a lot of effort into talking through scripture with her and going over how it violates scripture and logic. She told me about a group having one lunch. One of the women mentioned that the man was the head. However, the woman was the body and the neck is part of the body and the neck turns the head. Is that the submission that the are talking about? Jesus talks about giving up power. So, on the one hand, the complementarians are trying to wrest power from one another; on the other hand Jesus gave up power. Is complementarianism pointing us to Jesus?

  124. @ LT:
    “Swaying in hyperspirituality to the orgasm song” is just cruel.

    I do not care about the context here.

  125. @ okrapod:
    A lot of professors solicit students for sex. I know of cases. So who has the power in those situations, the adult or the student?

  126. Will M wrote:

    people should not walk away from Jesus, or Reformed Theology, or complementarianism, or the church!

    Will why did you include Jesus in this statement because Reformed Theology, complementarianism and the church are the new Trinity. This is what they worship.

  127. Ann wrote:

    One difference is her father got up before the church and gave a speech about his daughter’s purity and then gave over her purity ring to her groom!!! I can not imagine how all the “unpure” single women attending felt. I felt like I was at an auction.

    Goodness gracious! What if the girl was found to not have the proper tokens of virginity on the wedding night? Would she have been stoned to death outside her father’s door in keeping with God’s holy and inerrant word???

  128. mitch wrote:

    Youve actually contradicted your own point. You said we know precisely why Esther doesnt reveal her heritage – because Mordecai has told her not to. If this is true then its not really about appeasing the king its about Mordecai. However this doesnt make sense either because the king has no reason to have a problem with her heritage (the plan to persecute the Israelites has not yet been hatched).

    This is not contradictory in the least.She was raised to obey her guardian (patriarchy is like that.) And everyone in the empire attempted to keep the king happy. The statements are not mutually exclusive.

    mitch wrote:

    If she’s a mindless obedient zombie then why does she not “obey” Mordecai when he insists she must seek an audience with the king?

    She demonstrated her love and concern for Mordecai by risking her life to save him as well as her people.

    Finally, there must have been some ill will to the Jews in Persia or the king would not have even considered Haman’s request. If you notice in the text, Mordecai was quite worried about her and walked around outside the gate.

    mitch wrote:

    the problem is above all your filter insists that you read it with a mysoginists lens.

    You are making an assumption here. You neither know me or my “filter.”

    mitch wrote:

    It is quite clear that abusive churches and leadership have hurt you in the past, but misleading so many by propogating your pain into Biblical interpretation and commentary is both unfortunate and wrong.

    And you know this how? Actually I am grateful for the one pastor who truly behaved badly. It was necessary for me to see this so I would understand the ministry that God has called me to. I think you are making more assumptions about me than you claim I have about Esther. You have far more info on her than you do on me.

    I am sorry that my scholarship does not live up to your high expectations. However, I stand by my rather simplistic view. Esther was not a slut but an obedient woman and was used by God.

  129. mitch wrote:

    It is quite clear that abusive churches and leadership have hurt you in the past, but misleading so many by propogating your pain into Biblical interpretation and commentary is both unfortunate and wrong.

    Mitch, writing as one who has been Spiritually abused, I would like to rephrase your paragraph so it clearly expresses what many of us have been through, not just Dee.

    ‘It is quite clear that abusive churches and leadership have hurt me in the past this pain has been unfortunately propagated by Biblical interpretation and misleading commentary and this is SO wrong’.

  130. @ mitch:

    Well mitch I can see that you didn’t bank on a woman like dee and you wound up like Sisera at the hand of Jael (to use a loose metaphor).

  131. Will M wrote:

    Finally, the main thing to take away from what Piper is saying

    Pastor Piper prattled a pack of pompous poppycock;
    A pack of pompous poppycok Pastor Piper prattled;
    If Pastor Piper prattled a pack of pompous poppycock,
    Where’s the pack of pompous poppycock Pastor Piper prattled?

  132. mitch wrote:

    You said we know precisely why Esther doesnt reveal her heritage – because Mordecai has told her not to. If this is true then its not really about appeasing the king its about Mordecai. However this doesnt make sense either because the king has no reason to have a problem with her heritage (the plan to persecute the Israelites has not yet been hatched). You’re also asserting that she has more obedience to Mordecai (who isn’t threatening her with her life) and is swaying her more than the king? This doesnt make any logical sense.

    Unless I am missing something, you are not making sense here. Esther did what Mordecai asked her to do. She had no choice whether to go to the king’s court or not. What is your problem with these two things which do not contradict one another at all?

    Just so you know, many of us have already heard the “you’ve been hurt by men (so what you say can be dismissed) way too many times. Besides, since you are into logic, it’s an ad hominem. Why don’t you address the plight of women who have no choices and who are being robbed of their inheritance as daughters of the King by insecure men who distort what the Bible actually says?

  133. Will M wrote:

    So, on the one hand, the complementarians are trying to wrest power from one another; on the other hand Jesus gave up power. Is complementarianism pointing us to Jesus?

    First, about the head and neck thing. Gramp3 has been known to tweak people by saying he’s the head and I’m the neck who turns the head. The fact is we don’t worry about who is directing whom, and somehow we have managed to have a good marriage for a very long time. Longer than most of the pups promoting this bilge. If it is about who is in charge, other than the King himself, then the wrong conversation is being had. The Kingdom is about giving, not asserting one’s own interests above others. I know they mask the power grab using “servant” language, but that is not what they mean. It is not necessary to be the one with the power in order to be the one who serves. The servant-leader thing is the selling point and the candy coating on the poison pill of authoritarianism. Philippians tells us that Jesus laid down his authority to become a servant. He didn’t grasp it the way these men grasp power, and they justify it by saying that the Eternal Son is eternally subordinate! What chutzpah these posers have. I would not have their nerve.

    I’m sorry your daughter is caught up in this. Please understand the social pressure she is under. She will be judged if she wavers at all. I’ve seen it happen to a young woman recently in a Female Subordinationist church. She will be told that she is caving to culture or is rebelling against God or is pursuing a lukewarm faith.

    I wish I had a magic answer for you and your daughter. The thing that I just could not swallow is ESS. Anyone who believes and pushes that cannot be trusted, IMO, to handle the Bible. That, along with another particular point, made me take a look at the actual texts and also to read a lot of their material. I found, much to my surprise, that it is based on very shoddy reasoning and lots of things which are read into the text. After that, the trust factor was destroyed, and then there was no going back to the old way of thinking. I hope that your daughter is able to hold on to and stand firm in her freedom in Christ.

  134. @ rhondajeannie:
    That’s how Piper phrased it in the video. It’s the same old same old. Rebellion against Piper is rebellion against God. Rebellion against Reformed theology is rebellion against God’s sovereignty. Rebellion against “Complementarianism” is rebellion against God’s “good and beautiful plan.”

    Pay no attention to the elephant in the room, namely Piper’s praise of Driscoll back before Driscoll displayed what the rest of them are all about.

  135. @ mitch:
    Even if theoretically you were right about this one case, just saying “you’re wrong and your errors are too numerous to mention!” about the rest of the points Dee makes does not make it so, and frankly it’s pretty condescending and dismissive. I think it’s quite obvious from the Old Testament that women were indeed treated horribly. I fail to see how Dee’s “lens” changes that. I’m a man and I see it too.

  136. @ dee:
    Sorry I repeated what you said. That’s what I get for reading from the top down. Anyway, it’s clear that Mitch needs a refresher course on logic.

  137. Bill M wrote:

    Where’s the pack of pompous poppycock Pastor Piper prattled?

    Imprinted indelibly on the brains of his many unquestioning fanboys and fangirls. 🙂

  138. mitch wrote:

    , I suggest you make sure you have better support for your “facts”. I had it in mind to respond to the errors in your post, but they’re too numerous! For brevity I will grab one from early in your article:

    How about if you back up this rather grand claim with some actual facts because the one you offered was totally bogus? Being brief is not a problem you need to worry about here, and I should know! Maybe your actual list of errors about the cultural context and the facts in the OP is…brief?

  139. @ dee:
    About concealing her identity: i always thought it was because she and Mordecai were Jews, not because he was a dictatorisl patriarch, though i think your point is a good one. It can be easy to miss the obvious at times.

  140. @ LT:

    Churches don’t help adult singles who are trying to abide by the Bible’s teachings to remain celibate. All the emphasis on sex is not fair to those singles. And quite frankly, other than being tacky, the nonstop emphasis on it is rather weird.

  141. Gram3 wrote:

    Being brief is not a problem you need to worry about here, and I should know!

    Hope you don’t mind if I had a silent chuckle about your “I should know.” 🙂

  142. Gram3 wrote:

    Bill M wrote:
    Where’s the pack of pompous poppycock Pastor Piper prattled?
    Imprinted indelibly on the brains of his many unquestioning fanboys and fangirls.

    Too bad, unfortunate there are some that can’t manage the easy discernment of prattle.

  143. Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:

    The irony is that this treatment of women is alive and well in some parts of Middle East to this day. Saudi Arabia, the “great friend” of the US comes to mind!!

    Saudi Arabia, i.e. Wahabi Islam, which locks in Bronze Age Semitic Tribal Culture by Divine Fiat for all eternity.

    Judaism’s been stomped on periodically since not long after the time of Solomon; during the Diaspora it grew out of its cultural tribalism while preserving its unique identity.

    Christianity spent its first 300 years as an underground outlaw religion. Plus it started out in the cosmopolitan civilization of the early Roman Empire, with cultural diffusion mixing Greek and Roman elements in with the original Jewish.

    But Islam… Islam started out with a 400-year unbroken winning streak and ended up with the Curse of Runaway Early Success. Locking in its Arabic Tribal Culture HARD. And every time it seems to grow and evolve, another Utterly Pure Islam bursts out of the Empty Quarter to force the clock back to Year One of the Hegira.

  144. GovPappy wrote:

    @ Max:
    Really? Whatever it takes to keep the Gospel™ Pyramid Scheme going, eh Mr Chandler?

    With the Gospel Glitterati’s names on top of the list.

  145. Ann wrote:

    One difference is her father got up before the church and gave a speech about his daughter’s purity and then gave over her purity ring to her groom!!!

    Formal transfer of ownership?

  146. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    A lot of Judaism is still very patriarchal, though. Not so true of many Conservative and Reform Jews in the US and elsewhere, but many, many Orthodox have a harsh take on this. (Fwiw, the Reform is the only branch of Judaism where women are members of the rabbinate.)

  147. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    You speak partial truth about early Islam, but i suspect things might be very different now had the great center of learning that was Baghdad not been wiped out by the Mongols. Ditto for the xtian Reconquista and expulsion of Muslims and Jews from Spain and Portugal.

    I am not saying that these examples (or others like them) were perfect places to live, but today’s Islamist movements are actually a *modern* phenomenon. That’s something yhat can be easily verfified – and folks from the Middle East have a VERY hard time getting this point across to Westerners. We have our own myths about ourselves, and distorted views about people who follow other faiths, anc a lot of the time, we’re too stubnorn to allow reality to get in the way, you know?

  148. Muff Potter wrote:

    Goodness gracious! What if the girl was found to not have the proper tokens of virginity on the wedding night? Would she have been stoned to death outside her father’s door in keeping with God’s holy and inerrant word???

    That’s what the Seven Mountains Mandate and 200-year Plans to restore a Christian Nation are for.

  149. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Ann wrote:
    One difference is her father got up before the church and gave a speech about his daughter’s purity and then gave over her purity ring to her groom!!!
    Formal transfer of ownership?

    I think that it was actually a display of pride by the father who had a pure daughter. Never mind the content of the display, such a display used to be considered tasteless.

  150. Ann wrote:

    One difference is her father got up before the church and gave a speech about his daughter’s purity and then gave over her purity ring to her groom!!!

    Who handed over the groom’s purity ring to the bride??

  151. @ okrapod:
    Yes, i was shocked to learn of several professional, educated and successful women who traded in sexual favors for advancement.

    However such antics become dangerous for the silly men who fell for it after the sexual harassment laws came into effect in the 90s. The one who is considered to hold the power in the situation is culpable. Big payouts tended to make companies think twice about what they tolerated.

  152. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Ann wrote:
    One difference is her father got up before the church and gave a speech about his daughter’s purity and then gave over her purity ring to her groom!!!
    Formal transfer of ownership?

    Let’s swap that purity ring for a leash! If the groom’s not happy with how his dog has been trained, he can always take her back for a refund!

  153. numo wrote:

    You speak partial truth about early Islam, but i suspect things might be very different now had the great center of learning that was Baghdad not been wiped out by the Mongols. Ditto for the xtian Reconquista and expulsion of Muslims and Jews from Spain and Portugal.

    Reading any history of those eras has been problematic for me. I’ve read accounts from both sides and my skepticism meter is always buzzing away.

    I am skeptical of the tolerant image portrayed of Spain under Islam and am also distrustful of those portraying the opposite. I am also skeptical that Islam would be more tolerant if it had they not experienced reversals in Bagdad and Andalusia, I find their whole system oppressive. I’m thankful Charles the Hammer was around so we didn’t have had to find out first hand how tolerant Islamic rule would be in Europe.

  154. @ dee:
    Dee,
    “It’s quite clear that abusive churches and leadership have” NOT hurt ME in the past. (Made me fightin’ mad, yeah. Hurt me, no.)
    I have read the book of Esther, along with a few other books, as I’m sure you and many commenters have. I’ve also had a couple of history classes, like most of us. That being said, I vote for YOU! IMHO, I think Mitch might need to “study up” a little bit before he starts firin’ from his keyboard again. I wonder how well versed he is in the events that led Esther, the Jewish maiden, to live in the land that is now known as Iran?

    You just keep swingin’ away. You’re not just battin’ a thousand, you’re knocking’ ’em ovah da fence!

  155. Ann wrote:

    One difference is her father got up before the church and gave a speech about his daughter’s purity and then gave over her purity ring to her groom!!!

    Along with the key to her Chasity belt.

  156. I can’t help myself ……
    Mark Driscoll said, “Every single book in your Bible is written by a man.”
    I wonder if he is aware of the fact that SEVERAL of those men were EXECUTED?

  157. @ mitch:
    I don’t think we need a misogynist lens if we have done any reading on the cultural context. It has been years since I read up on this but I seem to remember one scholar pointing out that they found Esther pretty far out in the regions as the diaspora were and brought her to the place. Add that to her probable age of being a young teen and read it through that lens. Can you even imagine?

  158. @ Bill M:
    I agree with your comment and have had the same thoughts about what has been presented by both sides. But we do have to ask why democracy was avoided by Islamic countries to the degree we have seen historically.

  159. @ Bill M:
    There is, to beging eith, not a monolithic Islam, not now, not ever. Do you think European rulers were “tolerant”? After many terrible pogroms, the Jewish populations of both England and France were expelled during yhe high Middle Ages. One of the worst pogroms took place in York, Englsnd, after a small boy was allegedly murdered (under a clasdic blood libel accusation – that said child was killed for his blood, which was supposedly baked into Passover matzohs).

    Problem is, the whole thing was a lie. That didn’t stop the pogrom or the expulsion, and the cult of the fictitious “Little St. Hugh” literally became enshrined in York Cathedral.

    Add to that the various Inquisitions, the burnings of heretics (in England alone, over 300 people were put to death in this way from Henry VIII-his daughter Mary Tudor) and i don’tthink the picture that emerges is one of “tolerance.” Case in point: many Jews who escaped from the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisition fled to Morocco, what is now Algeria, and Istanbul. Yes, they were taxed for not being Muslims, but they were *never* subject to rape, murder and forced conversion under the rulers oof those countries, nor were they in Muslim-ruled Spain and Portugal. They had synagogogues, could run busineses and study freely, and there were Jewish courtiers at the courts of many Muslim rulers – just as there were ME and N. African xtians at same.

    I am not saying that any of these places were paradise, but certainly, Muslims were willing to live and let live in a way that was simply unknown in Europe. *We* are the ones who waged bloody religious wars and mass persecutions.

  160. @ lydia:
    ??? This makes no sense to me. You mean Iran, where the US had the only democratically-elected PM (Mossadegh) murdered in the 50s, so that we could back a puppet dictatorship run, ostensibly, by the Shah, who was a cruel dictator? (While meanwhile running an offstage conflict with the UK for control or Iran, because that really was about control and ownership of their oil?) And very similar arrangements with the secular military dictator of Iraq, for the same reason, or…?

    Let’s be clear: most of the ME + Egypt was in the Otyoman Empire until after WWI. The British and French both had controlling interests in a number of countries, including Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, until their eventual independence in the 1950s. I am afraid that those countries plus the US have tried to keep ME and N. African countries (largely controlled by France and Spain until the 1960s) on a very, very short leash. I am not sure you’re taking all of this into account. Most African and ME countries that wrre colonized by European countries have not fared well post-independence, majority Muslim or not. The reasons are complex, and religion is by no means the single most important component in all of that.

  161. @ okrapod:
    The standard KJ Bible says, “Michal, daughter of Saul” in II Sam. 18:8, but I checked a study Bible translation and it says “Merab, daughter of Saul”.
    Makes a body wonder what else may have been confused in translations, doesn’t it?

  162. Nancy2 wrote:

    Makes a body wonder what else may have been confused in translations, doesn’t it?

    It does. And the information I got is not just that it is translations that differ, it is the actual jewish manuscripts. I don’t know what a body does in this sort of situation, but apparently there are also a lot of ancient NT manuscripts that have differences between themselves also.

    Some people get so caught up in the issue of manuscripts which vary and then translations that vary also that they just throw out the bible. Some people take the other approach and go to the mat for their particular favorite manuscript or translation. I can’t bring myself to take either of those approaches. I just kind of say to myself that here is something which we cannot be 100% sure about, so what else is new, there is a lot in life that is like that. Like gram3 said in our conversation about another issue, that some people can tolerate some inconsistencies and some do not. My problem is when to tolerate inconsistencies in translations/manuscripts or even inconsistencies in ideas by the scripture writers themselves and when to get excited about it. I am sure that I do not make that call correctly all the time and no doubt I overlook some stuff I should pay more attention to, but I just have to live with myself and move on.

    I think it is great that you noticed this about David and brought it up. I completely missed it by not noticing that some bibles say Michal. I grew up with KJV which says Michal, but that was a long time ago. That is one of the things that I like about TWW. I don’t know what people do who do not have conversations.

  163. @ numo:

    IMO whoever, student or professor, does the soliciting has the greater guilt, but they are both guilty of sexual sin (and stupidity).

  164. Are we all reading the same book of Esther in the bible? A quick reading of the first two chapters shows the king as reasonable, as consulting with those who know the law before deciding what to do about his wife who defied him, and shows him abiding by the law even thought he was quite angry. The bible says that the legal advisors said that Vashti should not again appear before the king, but there is no statement of how he got that done. There is no statement that she was either executed or banished, just that she fell out of favor and lost her position at court, if we can think that the bible is telling the whole story. A note in my bible says that there is no mention of Vashti as queen elsewhere and perhaps she was a concubine. I don’t know where or when people started saying that the king was asking her to do something lewd, but I don’t see that in the bible. The note also says that there is no mention of Esther elsewhere, and that the king’s wife was named Amestris. All we have for this story is what is in the bible.

    The bible also does not describe a forced conscription of beautiful young virgins on threat of death. It does say that the ‘order and decree’ went out, commissioners were appointed ‘to assemble’ the young girls and “many” beautiful women were identified and taken to the capital. Where did we get the idea of ‘brown shirts’ so to speak going door to door on threat of death? Perhaps that happened, or perhaps the commissioners were organizers who set up some system to weed out cinderella’s sisters from the competition. Or both. We are not told. So when all this bunch got to Susa ‘Esther too was taken.’ So we are saying forcibly taken against her will? Or does it mean that she met the qualifications as was admitted to the group? We are not told.

    We are told that Mordecai had been taken as captive under Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. So this family were not just people who happened to be religious Jews but were also residuals of former war and constituted a problem for Xerxes of Persia. Prisoner/refugees by history apparently. So Esther said nothing, just like Mordecai said. Were the people in charge of all of this oblivious to her heritage or did somebody just not tell the king? We are not told.

    We do know that she was treated well because she was found favorable, and that she ‘charmed all who saw her’ and that the king ‘loved her more than any of his other women.’

    And we do know that when she presented her case before the king he took steps to thwart the scheme for destruction of the Jews. He could have been furious that Esther had not told him that she was Jewish in the first place. But, the end of it all was that the king let the jews commit vast slaughter of their enemies across the whole empire. (Oops!) The bible has high praise for the king and places Mordecai in high position and Esther as a hero.

    I do not see the victims in this story as being the women so much as being first the Jews and then those whom the Jews slaughtered. This looks to me like a story of ancient wars, anti-semitism and survival of a people group.

  165. My comment has not been published. A friend tried to leave a comment, but was not able to do so. Perhaps they have closed comments?

  166. @ numo:

    Lets be clearer. Where do we see ANY movements by Muslims historically toward democracy individual civil rights in any form? I do not view Islam as a religion of “peace” but a religion of “submission”. Please understand that does not automatically mean I want to kill Muslims.

    I prefer tolerance from both sides. But as much as I have studied Islam I cannot find a tolerance for anything resembling democracy or egalitarianism. That does not mean individual Muslims go that route either. And it does not mean I hate Muslims.

    This is not about one side being nicer or better than another because Christian history is an evil bloody mess, too. So are power politics and one person’s evil Shah is another person’s evil Iman. And I am not sure why you always try to make turn it into that sort of dichotomy.

    I would prefer to agree to disagree and drop it. We have been down this road before.

  167. okrapod wrote:

    Some people get so caught up in the issue of manuscripts which vary and then translations that vary also that they just throw out the bible. Some people take the other approach and go to the mat for their particular favorite manuscript or translation. I can’t bring myself to take either of those approaches. I just kind of say to myself that here is something which we cannot be 100% sure about, so what else is new, there is a lot in life that is like that.

    Yes, this sort of thing can drive you nuts if let it. Isaiah 3:12 is like this, too. If not for the yeoman’s work of Katherine Bushnell I would never have caught it even though it made no sense.

    https://godswordtowomen.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/isaiah-312-he-nation-could-sink-no-lower-than-to-pass-under-women-rulers/

    The typical English translation makes no sense in light of Deborah.

    After years of study and much frustration in light of what we are discussing I decided to focus on major themes, praise God for the Holy Spirit and come to grips with the fact that scripture is not the 4th person of the Trinity. That view does not discount scripture but puts it in its rightful place.

  168. rhondajeannie wrote:

    Ann wrote:
    One difference is her father got up before the church and gave a speech about his daughter’s purity and then gave over her purity ring to her groom!!!
    Along with the key to her Chasity belt.

    The sexual abuse within highly conservative and fundamental families (ala Doug Phillips/ Bill Gothard/ Duggars) is rife.

  169. dee wrote:

    This is why I cam concerned about things at Acts 29.

    All of Christendom should be concerned about it!! Acts 29 has sure done a number on SBC! Besides the numerous churches which hold dual SBC and Acts 29 affiliation, Driscoll’s message and methodology are firmly entrenched throughout SBC’s church planting movement. Many of these young church planters cut their teeth on Drisoll’s potty-mouth macho-man sermons. While Driscoll re-invents himself during his “sabbatical”, Chandler enjoys icon-status in YRR ranks; when he tweets, they listen. To desire to be associated with Driscoll when the cussing pastor was at his nastiest, says a lot about Chandler.

  170. singleman wrote:

    Shane Idleman wrote the following post, “5 Lessons We Can Learn From Mark Driscoll Controversy,” which was published this morning on Charisma News’ website.

    Thanks for flagging this article. I just read it and have mixed feelings about its content, but certainly agree when the author says:

    “Churches don’t need more marketing plans, demographic studies, or giving campaigns; we need men filled with the Spirit of God. Sermons should not come from pop-psychology or the latest fad; they must come from the prayer closet … The men who do the most for God are always men of prayer, brokenness and humility.”

    This does not describe young pastors in SBC’s New Calvinist church plants in my area! Indeed, the youth group appears to be running the SBC these days! A lot of preacher boys, but not too many men of God.

  171. Max wrote:

    This does not describe young pastors in SBC’s New Calvinist church plants in my area! Indeed, the youth group appears to be running the SBC these days

    Calvinjugend.
    Like the Waffen-SS in the Balkans: Young, Tough, Cocky, and Absolutely Loyal to the Regime.

  172. May wrote:

    The sexual abuse within highly conservative and fundamental families (ala Doug Phillips/ Bill Gothard/ Duggars) is rife.

    When women are animate property, the Will of the Y Chromosome must Triumph, and any orders from Captain Bonerhelmet must be obeyed with First Time Obedience (without any hesitation), what do you expect?

  173. Patti wrote:

    LT wrote:

    You can watch the ladies swaying in hyper spirituality to the orgasm song here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bUPXLqB1Po

    Someone should dub/shred that like they did with One Direction’s Story of My Life and Steven Furtick’s Hey Haters.

    Or Benny Hinn with “Let the Bodies Hit the Floor” or “Darth Hinn” with the Photoshopped-in red lightsaber.

  174. numo wrote:

    Case in point: many Jews who escaped from the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisition fled to Morocco, what is now Algeria, and Istanbul. Yes, they were taxed for not being Muslims, but they were *never* subject to rape, murder and forced conversion under the rulers oof those countries, nor were they in Muslim-ruled Spain and Portugal. They had synagogogues, could run busineses and study freely, and there were Jewish courtiers at the courts of many Muslim rulers – just as there were ME and N. African xtians at same.

    And now, 500 years later, the roles are completely reversed. Now it’s Western nations who accept the Jews and Islamic nations who are into a Final Solution to the Jew Problem. Which one teaches Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their schools these days?

  175. Nancy2 wrote:

    Let’s swap that purity ring for a leash! If the groom’s not happy with how his dog has been trained, he can always take her back for a refund!

    Or dog-train her like James Dobson instead of that heathen Dog Whisperer.

  176. lydia wrote:

    However such antics become dangerous for the silly men who fell for it after the sexual harassment laws came into effect in the 90s.

    The rules flipped one-eighty, but those who Gamed the Old System adapted and continued to Game the New System.

  177. singleman wrote:

    Shane Idleman wrote the following post, “5 Lessons We Can Learn From Mark Driscoll Controversy,” which was published this morning on Charisma News’ website. I expect this will prompt some discussion and perhaps serve as source material for a future TWW post.

    http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/50865-5-lessons-we-can-learn-from-mark-driscoll-controversy

    Thanks for posting this article. I was unimpressed by what the author wrote. He focuses too much on respecting church leaders and doesn’t adequately discuss legitimate problems that church members raise. How he could write an article about Mark Driscoll and omit that Driscoll still hasn’t repented for the vicious firing and excommunications of Paul Petry (a godly elder who opposed Driscoll’s un-Biblical consolidation of power) and family, Bent Meyer (same), Driscoll’s church secretary, and countless church members whose lives, relationships, and names were in tatters fails to address ANY of that.
    (I think many people would be better served by reading Dr. Ronald Enroth’s books about abusive churches, Churches That Abuse and the second one Recovering From Churches That Abuse. Dr. Enroth has made both books available for free online.)

  178. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Young, Tough, Cocky, and Absolutely Loyal to the Regime.

    Headless, you’ve got that right! Tough and cocky are not spiritual gifts, but there has been an outbreak of it in NC ranks! As far as loyalty to the regime goes, one of the NC icons spurs the young reformers forward with statements like:

    “Where else are they going to go? If you’re a theological minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel built and structured committed churches, your theology is just going to end up basically being Reformed, basically something like this new Calvinism, or you’re going to have to invent some label for what is basically going to be the same thing, there just are not options out there, and that’s something that frustrates some people, but when I’m asked about the New Calvinism—where else are they going to go, who else is going to answer the questions, where else are they going to find the resources they are going to need and where else are they going to connect. This is a generation that understands, they want to say the same thing that Paul said, they want to stand with the apostles, they want to stand with old dead people, and they know that they are going to have to, if they are going to preach and teach the truth.” (Dr. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)

    Whew! That means the rest of us are not “committed to the gospel and want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ”?! “No options out there”?! Yep, no shortage of cocky amongst the New Calvinist bunch.

  179. LT wrote:

    You can watch the ladies swaying in hyper spirituality to the orgasm song here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bUPXLqB1Po

    If this is what the music scene has become in both the secular and ixtian realms, it really is No Country for Old Men.
    I’ll take Janis Joplin any day of the week and six ways to Sunday.

  180. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Or dog-train her like James Dobson instead of that heathen Dog Whisperer.

    Thomas Paine had Dobson pegged long ago when he wrote:

    “Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.”

  181. @ Max:

    Being Mohler means you never have to explain or say you are sorry. Now we are pretend “unity” or we are mean and divisive. Yet, Mohler is NEVER required to revisit his words or behavior.

    Amazing what one man can get by with when he has thousands of young men gaslighting for him.

  182. Max wrote:

    Chandler enjoys icon-status in YRR ranks; when he tweets, they listen. To desire to be associated with Driscoll when the cussing pastor was at his nastiest, says a lot about Chandler.

    Yes, it certainly does. And he demonstrated that affinity for Driscoll in the way he and the ELDERS at The Village conducted themselves toward Karen Hinckley. Driscoll was targeted toward edgy Seattle. Chandler is targeted toward North Dallas which is definitely not edgy. But it is the same dog food with different graphics on the label.

  183. @ Max:
    Ja, heil Hitler!!!! …… Reincarnated as a neo-cal.
    Oh no!!!! Does that make Kentucky the neo-Nazi Germany???

  184. Max wrote:

    …when he tweets, they listen…

    At any one time, there are various celebrities of whom this is true – i.e. they have an influence far beyond the boundaries of their immediate circle of relationship.

    The importance of the blogsphere and sites such as this, whatever their faults, is that via them, The Church is willing to take at least some responsibility for its celebrities. Too many people, ISTM, although aware of the fact that not many of us should presume to be teachers, because those who teach will be subject to a stricter judgement, passively leave that judgement entirely to God at the end of time.

  185. @ numo:
    Of Mohammed Mossadegh, he and his democratically-elected goverment wereoverthrown. He was not killed.

    My bad.

  186. Lydia wrote:

    Mohler is NEVER required to revisit his words or behavior

    It should be clear by now that Dr. Mohler is untouchable in SBC ranks. If SBC’s leadership wanted to call him to account, they missed a perfect opportunity after his takeover of Southern Seminary when he said during his convocation address in 1993:

    “The Abstract of Principles (reformed theology) remains a powerful testimony to a Baptist theological heritage that is genuinely evangelical, Reformed, biblical, and orthodox … We bear the collective responsibility to call this denomination back to itself and its doctrinal inheritance. This is a true reformation … may we go with the prayer offered by John Calvin … ”

    In the spirit of John Calvin, Dr. Mohler is out and about seeking to reform the world with the message of Calvinism. He truly believes that Calvinism is the only true gospel and that it his responsibility to restore truth to the church that the rest of us has lost! He obviously believes that he has been called for such a time as this.

    The window was open for a few years at Southern Seminary for the non-Calvinist SBC to correct him in this regard; by failing to do so, they gave him enough wiggle room to champion the New Calvinist movement along with his buddies over at The Gospel Coalition (= The Calvinist Coalition). At the root of many of the woes reported on TWW and other watchblogs is Calvinist belief and practice gone astray (authoritarian rule, protection of elders at all cost, sad treatment of women, etc.).

  187. Nancy2 wrote:

    Does that make Kentucky the neo-Nazi Germany?

    Certainly not! Kentucky is a fine State of hard-working, God-fearing American patriots. Louisville, on the other hand, is ground-zero for New Calvinism … Al Mohler’s Geneva. Pray for commenter Lydia; I believe she lives there and may bump into Dr. Mohler at the Piggly Wiggly someday (God help the man!).

  188. Max wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Mohler is NEVER required to revisit his words or behavior
    It should be clear by now that Dr. Mohler is untouchable in SBC ranks

    A God Can Do No Wrong.

    He truly believes that Calvinism is the only true gospel and that it his responsibility to restore truth to the church that the rest of us has lost!

    As it was in the Days of the Prophet…

  189. numo wrote:

    @ numo:
    Of Mohammed Mossadegh, he and his democratically-elected goverment wereoverthrown. He was not killed.

    My bad.

    To prevent Iran from “falling to the USSR” in the cold us-vs-them logic of the Cold War.

    With the safety valve thus sealed shut, the resulting pressure cooker finally blew in the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which exchanged the Ayatollahs for the Shah on the Peacock Throne. Secular monarchy Dictatorship succeeded by Religious Dictatorship.

  190. @ okrapod:
    Considering the usual ages here, where a female student is early 20ish and the male prof in his 40s or older, there is a power imbalance, with that favor tipping to the older person.
    It’s up to the older and hence wiser (due to having more life experience) to keep the boundaries in place.
    I don’t buy that these older people who are falling into bed with the temptresses are helpless little lambs.

  191. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    To prevent Iran from “falling to the USSR” in the cold us-vs-them logic of the Cold War.

    Yes and some forget that the Monarchy was still on its throne and was still a source of power when he was elected. He did not have the support of the Shiite clergy which pretty much cut out support from the lower and religious classes. Another issue is who was allowed to vote.

    Big mess we are guilty of being involved in but positioning him as the answer to democracy in tribal Islamic Iran is a bit much.

  192. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    It was originally a British coup plan and the CIA was asked to join, which they did. A LOT of it was and still is about oil. The British had been trying in vain to get exclusive rights to all Iranian oil via what is now BP, and Mossadegh’s government nationalized oil rights (IOW, no other nation would get to have exclusive deals with Iran – Iranians would control the supply, sales and profits).

    A military dictator was immediately installed in place of Mossadegh, and then the Shah’s powers (which had been severely curtailed by Mossadegh and in previous decades by their parliament) were reinstated. The book Daughter of Persia has a great deal about it from a 1st-person perspective, as the author, Sattareh Farman Farmaian, grew up in a political family and knew a lot of the people in question (I think Mossadegh himself, though it’s been a while and I can’t remember). The father of Reza Pahlavi, the shah we remember was the 1st shah in 20th c. Iran – and an artillery sergeant serving under the author’s father during WWI. (Also an illiterate man, at that time, anyway.) So… the Pahlavis were no better than they ought to have been, as the Brits say.

    I used to know someone who was one of the architects of the 1st Afghan constitution… unfortunately, that did not work out, and he ended up in exile in the US, many years ago. He worked at my university’s library.

  193. @ numo:
    Kermit Roosevelt was the CIA person in charge of the coup.

    Mossadegh was originally supposed to have been executed, but was instead kept under house arrest until he died, and buried underneath his house, because the Shah (and us) did not want to give him a public funeral, lest it spark populist sentiment and lead to the shah’s overthrow. I think it would have gone better for that country if we had allowed it to go through in public.

    I mean, the arrogance involved in such plots by countries jockeying for empire is so.wrong. on so many levels. But the British hadn’t let go of India when this started, and they had been trying to get hold of the oil in Persia since long before its name was changed to Iran… Farmaian talks some about that, too.

  194. Max wrote:

    While Driscoll re-invents himself during his “sabbatical”, Chandler enjoys icon-status in YRR ranks; when he tweets, they listen. To desire to be associated with Driscoll when the cussing pastor was at his nastiest, says a lot about Chandler.

    Matt Chandler on Driscoll’s stepping down as president of Acts 29, quoted in The Christian Post, April 11, 2012: “I want him on board. He’s a great advantage to the men, the movement, and the network as a whole.”

    Chandler in a letter to Driscoll circa August 8,2014: “Over the past three years, our board and network have been the recipients of countless shots and dozens of fires directly linked to you and what we consider ungodly and disqualifying behavior. We have both publicly and internally tried to support and give you the benefit of the doubt, even when multiple pastors in our network confirmed this behavior.”

    The letter was published by Warren Throckmorton and The Christian Post after reportedly being shared with Throckmorton by “several Acts 29 pastors.” Acts 29 declined to comment on the authenticity of the letter.

  195. @ Lydia:
    But his powers had been severely curtailed by Parliament and the Iranian constitution. Yes, “some” did forget that part earlier, but I’ve refreshed my memory.

    Reza Shah’s father introduced sweeping changes and knocked the props out from underneath the clerics, so they were not players in the Mossadegh thing. bEsides, it might not seem feasible , *but* many Iranian clerics were, in the past, highly educated people – in the secular realm as well as the sacred. Iran is an ancient nation, and its culture was – and still is – highly sophisticated, with great depth and beauty. They have excelled in literature, painting, philosophy and much, much more. Just because some “fundies” came into power does *not* mean that all Iranians think the way they do, or don’t have decent educations in the liberal arts and sciences, etc. (Even if a lot of it has to be done underground these days.)

  196. Lydia wrote:

    tribal Islamic Iran

    This still applies to some of the groups of people who live in Iran, but by NO MEANS does it apply to most Iranians, then or now.

    Please see my previous reply to you. I would strongly suggest that you read up a bit before making such statements.

  197. Lydia wrote:

    tribal Islamic Iran

    Did you know that Iranian cinema and many Iranian directors have become world-renowned *since* 1979? Iranian films are art house favorites, and all that I have seen has been nothing if not sophisticated, cosmopolitan, and certainly critical of the current regime.

    You might look for some titles on Netflix, just to see what I’m talking about.

    And this is only one of many ways in which Iranians and Iranian culture continues to survive, even to thrive, in the midst of oppression. Lots of women in these movies, btw, and they are complex characters.

  198. @ numo:

    numo, I spent my teen years with Iranian Muslims living at my home working on PhD’s in America. They came from the upper classes and their history was discussed regularly which got me interested. And I did my own reading because their view– after 1979— did not make a lot of sense to me. It was quite shocking to live through that experience and how it affected them.

    None of this means we are going to agree on larger themes and I still cannot figure out what the focus on such a short term attempt has to do with Islam as a “peaceful” religion or why any attempt at democracy digressed into what we see today all over most Muslim countries. They have to move away from Islam to practice any sort of individual rights for all. What saddens me the most about it in the ME is that true democracy with individual rights is not more infectious.

    I do not hate Muslims. I promise.

  199. @ Lydia:
    but… there are devout Iranian Muslims who went into exile, people who also had fine “secular” educations. i have known some.

    you are, imo, too either/or about their religion. i agree that as currently practiced and mandated by the leading clerics in Ira, religion is oppressive. but my point is that it does not *have* to be that way. equally true of any other religion, including xtianity. would the US exist if the Enlightenment hadn’t happened? my money’s on “no.” it took a bunch of deist and Unitarians and atheists to help jump-start our republic…

  200. @ Lydia:
    I do hear you, but I think you might be missing out on some of the key things re. Iran and various forms of Islam there. Are you familiar with Sufism (Muslim mysticism)? It was born in a part of Turkey that belonged to Iran for a very long time. It is the lifeblood of much Iranian poetry and prose, music, and… religion. It is diverse, and it is democratizing, and at various times (in Iran and other Muslim countries) Sufis have been put to death as heretics. But – the point is, the poetry of people like Rumi and Hafez and Omar Khayyam are among the great glories of Persian culture. The hardline mullahs probably know a lot of their works by heart. I think most people with any kind of education know their work.

    There is a contradictory strand (or maybe better to stay strands) in Iranian belief and practice that dates back over a thousand years, and it is something that the current regime has not been able to get rid of. I doubt anybody ever will. While I do not necessarily endorse all Sufi beliefs, I know that the regime fetes musicians and singers who are using those Sufi poets’ work to criticize the regime (among other things). To do otherwise would be disastrous. Some of those musicians and singers work in the West on a regular basis, doing concerts and making recordings (mainly for the Iranian exile community, but in recent years, for a far wider audience). Musicians from European countries have, generally speaking, far greater freedom to go to Iran to study and work with Iranian musicians, artists, architects… Even under great duress, there is still culture, and it is thriving, and the mullahs really cannot stop it. And that culture is infused with Sufi beliefs and ideals.

  201. Gram3 wrote:

    I’m sorry your daughter is caught up in this. Please understand the social pressure she is under. She will be judged if she wavers at all. I’ve seen it happen to a young woman recently in a Female Subordinationist church. She will be told that she is caving to culture or is rebelling against God or is pursuing a lukewarm faith.

    Thanks for he kind words. Yep, even with being male, I get a feeling for the pressure. The worst of it, at least for her, seems to be from other females. She told me about two ladies, at her conservative Xian college, talking about the scandalous fact that a female professor was teaching male students! Currently, I am trying to ensure that she does not have to wear a burqa, hyperbole, when leaving the house.

  202. Velour wrote:

    Thanks for posting this article. I was unimpressed by what the author wrote. He focuses too much on respecting church leaders and doesn’t adequately discuss legitimate problems that church members raise.

    Ditto, the whole article talks very little about the harm that the leadership at Mars Hill did. It emphasizes a need not to be critical (which can be true), but ignores the idea that there are times when people should be critical, highly critical, of what is happening in a church (e.g. The Village). And we certainly do not want anyone going public. This seems to be something that is being pushed, don’t criticize leadership. The membership does not understand what leadership has to deal with. We also, do not want the pew sitters to know too much. Our buddies at TCG weigh in:

    http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/erikraymond/2015/08/05/who-is-the-most-dangerous-guy-at-your-church/

    Beware of the woman/man who reads her Bible and understands theological terms!

  203. Will M wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    I’m sorry your daughter is caught up in this. Please understand the social pressure she is under. She will be judged if she wavers at all. I’ve seen it happen to a young woman recently in a Female Subordinationist church. She will be told that she is caving to culture or is rebelling against God or is pursuing a lukewarm faith.

    Thanks for he kind words. Yep, even with being male, I get a feeling for the pressure. The worst of it, at least for her, seems to be from other females. She told me about two ladies, at her conservative Xian college, talking about the scandalous fact that a female professor was teaching male students! Currently, I am trying to ensure that she does not have to wear a burqa, hyperbole, when leaving the house.

    I know conservative Christian men who are pastors/elders in European churches, and have been for 30 to 50 years or more. They have said that there is something seriously wrong with American Christianity and that it now has more in common with radical Islam than our freedom in Christ. As conservative pastors/elders they are alarmed by Membership Covenants, excommunications/shunnings going on in American churches for any type of dissent, Christians being banned from church services and on and on. They have said it’s totally un-Biblical.

  204. Will M wrote:

    The worst of it, at least for her, seems to be from other females. She told me about two ladies, at her conservative Xian college, talking about the scandalous fact that a female professor was teaching male students!

    The worst social pressure against females is from females, and the most social pressure against males is from other males. The other thing she is facing is that the guys have been fed this stuff, and they believe it. So, she is facing that as well. I hope that she is able to ask some questions, first of herself, about what it means to be created in the image of God and what it means to be in Christ. That is the first hurdle. When she finds her identity there first, perhaps the other false identities (roles) will become more apparently ridiculous. As her father, you are in a position to assure her that she is a dearly loved and valued daughter of the King who does not love or value his sons more than his daughters. Her worth is not in how others judge her role-playing or her groupthinking. It is tough out there for young people.

  205. Gram3 wrote:

    As her father, you are in a position to assure her that she is a dearly loved and valued daughter of the King who does not love or value his sons more than his daughters. Her worth is not in how others judge her role-playing or her groupthinking. It is tough out there for young people.

    Thanks, I try to let her know that she is loved by me. I will follow your advice and remind her about the King’s love for her.

  206. JohnD wrote:

    He’s a great advantage to the men, the movement, and the network as a whole.

    That line speaks volumes about New Calvinists protecting each other for the sake of “the movement.” They put up with Driscoll’s sacrilege because he was “a great advantage” for the reformed cause, with his potty-mouth drawing them in by the thousands … even as reports kept streaming in about Driscoll’s “ungodly and disqualifying behavior.” When he became too hot to handle, moving from asset to liability, Driscoll’s friends dropped him like a hot potato … “Mark who?”

    Christian leaders used to talk about what was best for the Kingdom of God and spread of the Gospel to a lost and dying world, rather than what was good for “the men, the movement and the network.” It’s sad to see so many young people caught up in the excitement of such aberration, as they depart from what is normal, usual, and expected as Christian witnesses.

  207. Max wrote:

    Christian leaders used to talk about what was best for the Kingdom of God and spread of the Gospel to a lost and dying world, rather than what was good for “the men, the movement and the network.”

    I believe that Chandler’s 2012 remark is an example of accidentally telling the truth. At least the truth about what Acts29 is really all about. The truth about Driscoll not so much.

  208. Gram3 wrote:

    I believe that Chandler’s 2012 remark is an example of accidentally telling the truth. At least the truth about what Acts29 is really all about.

    From my 60+ year snapshot of Southern Baptist life, I can tell you that the SBC was so open-minded about Acts29 that our spiritual brains fell out. The “men, the movement, and the network” have contributed significantly to the Calvinization of the largest non-Calvinist denomination in America. Most folks think it is a church planting group, rather than the theology planting machine that it is. Actually, a pretty smooth strategy by the New Calvinists … the pew still ain’t got a clue!

  209. Max wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:
    Does that make Kentucky the neo-Nazi Germany?
    Certainly not! Kentucky is a fine State of hard-working, God-fearing American patriots. Louisville, on the other hand, is ground-zero for New Calvinism … Al Mohler’s Geneva. Pray for commenter Lydia; I believe she lives there and may bump into Dr. Mohler at the Piggly Wiggly someday (God help the man!).

    Amen and thank you for the comments you made about Kentuckians. I am about a 3 hour drive from Louisville and I am a 8th generation Southern Kentuckian! Lydia can gimme a call if she wants some help from an ornery country woman. Yeah, Godhelp the man, but not in the way he expects.

  210. Max wrote:

    When he became too hot to handle, moving from asset to liability, Driscoll’s friends dropped him like a hot potato … “Mark who?”

    As of then, He Never Existed.
    doubleplusunperson.

  211. numo wrote:

    Do you think European rulers were “tolerant”?

    No. Are their only two choices? I’ve read the litany of abuses committed by chrisendom and islam and I don’t care to rehash them, yes man is evil.
    “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  212. Velour wrote:

    They have said that there is something seriously wrong with American Christianity and that it now has more in common with radical Islam than our freedom in Christ.

    Yep. I sure do agree with that.

    Some of the views on women, marriage, and procreation are similar.

  213. numo wrote:

    @ LT:
    Hey, the song “Hallelujah” has been recorded by many different people, in many different version, with more than a few rewritten lyrics. It became especially popular due to its use in the movie Shrek.
    I think Jeff Buckley’s comments are veryspecific to Buckle. As for Cohen’s mingling of sacred and secular imagery, he’s been doing that for his entire career. I am not sure why you make a point of saying “Jewish Zen Buddhist monk,” but given the context, it seems very disrespectful.
    What a comment you left.

    Leonard Cohen IS a Jewish, Zen Buddhist Monk. He was raised as a Talmudic Jew and still actively observes the sabbath. He also put a lot of time and effort into becoming a Rinzai Buddhist Monk including spending almost five years in reclusion at a Buddhist Monastery, so how on earth can that be disrespectful?
    .
    The reference to his background is relevant as the women pastors of Gateway are trying to sell non-biblical, non-Christian, secular and sexual content as truth and light. Dee’s post is about male centric pastors making Esther out to be a slut. I pointed out that Gateway’s Women’s Ministry had taken it one step further, desecrating the story of Esther by resetting her and her story into a modern day porn industry called “Girls Gone Wild”, a product of the devious criminal Joe Francis. I believe that is blasphemous and highly relevant to Dee’s post.

    GW’s Women’s ministry has stated their goal in 2015 is to reach the younger women. What message have we just sent to these young women that a great woman of the bible is equivalent to a drunk co-ed acting slutty? It might be helpful to understand that many of the girls in Francis’ exploitative films have had their lives irreparably destroyed by these porn films which are generally made when the women are heavily under the influence, thus impairing their judgment when they sign the waiver. Francis knows this and exploits the girls anyway. Pastrix Debbie Morris – who headed this series and the Cruise for Jesus – knows this, yet she gleefully further exploits the exploited. For what? A cheap thrill? Why don’t these 8 women ministers have more compassion for the girls in these films? These women pastors are mothers and grandmothers. They shouldn’t be making light of this in the name of Jesus just to make their ministry more worldly.
    .
    These same grandma pastors are also promoting a clearly hedonistic venue so they can don their bikinis and margaritas and pretend they are going deeper into the bible. If I described more of their tawdry stunts it would never pass moderation.
    .
    I was pointing out that this practice extended even into the worship as Gateway paid worship singers Dara MacLean and Kari Jobe, at a Christian concert, were singing Leonard Cohen’s sexually charged Hallelujah song as a Christian Worship song. I know a lot of people, including me, really like this song. But it is not a Christian Worship song. I brought up the fact that the singer, songwriter Leonard Cohen was a Jewish, Zen Buddhist Monk because he IS one. He is not a Christian. He doesn’t believe in Jesus. He did not write the song as a worship song. Kari has over a million fans and is a Pastor at GW which means she does have responsibility to her young impressionable flock. Therefore, she might want to drop that song as well as encouraging her co-pastors to drop the references to Esther being a girl gone wild. Kari’s mom Sandy Jobe, is one of the top GW Pink pastors helping to promote the Esther Gone Wild classes and the hedonist, boozy, casino gambling, private island getaway for Jesus. What’s next? Twerking with Ruth Zumba classes?
    .
    My point is, as upsetting as it is when men pastors try to tart up the bible, bible study and worship service, isn’t it actually worse when our women leaders do it?

  214. Daisy wrote:

    @ LT:
    Churches don’t help adult singles who are trying to abide by the Bible’s teachings to remain celibate. All the emphasis on sex is not fair to those singles. And quite frankly, other than being tacky, the nonstop emphasis on it is rather weird.

    I agree with you. It is inappropriate and awkward and has to make it more difficult for those who wish to pursue celibacy. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard youth pastors bring up how “smoking hot” their wife is (now they apparently are calling them “smoke machines”) and how great it is that their wife’s love language is “touching” and aren’t you boys jealous? I am not really sure why they do that in front of preteen and teens with raging hormones. You add in all this other stuff and you end up sexualizing the church. Couldn’t that be the one place where this doesn’t happen?

  215. lydia wrote:

    @ LT:
    Did I just read what I read? Tell me this is a joke.

    Not a joke at all. Nice eisegesis, huh? I meant what I said about not getting past moderation on other examples. It’s the “wink wink – titter titter” side of Gateway. Head Pastor Robert Morris’ wife Debbie Morris, who heads the entire Pink Women’s Ministry, decided to give a sermon this spring to just the young women of the church in order to try to get them to join the Pink Women’s Ministry. She opens the talk with a vulgar, tawdry story that had nothing to do with anything. I think she thought it would be a great ice breaker so the girls would laugh and think she was hip and funny, then they’d see how wild and fun Pink is. It didn’t seem to work.
    .
    One of the Tech Arts guys must have had a sense of humor because he kept cutting to audience shots on the jumbo screen showing the girls physically cringing, with looks of shock and disbelief, with their mouths hanging open, as the story got worse and worse. Her Women’s Ministry “squad” belly laughed, but it seemed pretty awkward for the other girls who realized that this woman was in the same demographic as their own mothers. If it was in a bar towards last call, it might have worked out a lot better. It was a frat house type story. However, this was in a sanctuary on the altar and was the opening for her sermon. She forgot the performer’s cardinal rule: Know your audience.
    .
    The worst part of the Joe Francis deal is that the Morrises have openly talked about their daughter’s highly immoral lifestyle as a teen and young adult. Elaine even preaches about being very wild so it is no secret. You would think that a woman like Debbie would have too much compassion for the Joe Francis girls’ plight to exploit that theme, realizing that could have been her own family. I have seen interviews of some of the girls from those films. Their stories are heart-breaking.
    .
    Now that Mark Driscoll is under Robert Morris’ tutelage can you imagine how bad his next teaching on Esther will be as he tries to one up the Pink ladies? This could get interesting.

  216. Nancy2 wrote:

    Max wrote:
    Nancy2 wrote:
    Does that make Kentucky the neo-Nazi Germany?
    Certainly not! Kentucky is a fine State of hard-working, God-fearing American patriots. Louisville, on the other hand, is ground-zero for New Calvinism … Al Mohler’s Geneva. Pray for commenter Lydia; I believe she lives there and may bump into Dr. Mohler at the Piggly Wiggly someday (God help the man!).
    Amen and thank you for the comments you made about Kentuckians. I am about a 3 hour drive from Louisville and I am a 8th generation Southern Kentuckian! Lydia can gimme a call if she wants some help from an ornery country woman. Yeah, Godhelp the man, but not in the way he expects.

    I was born in Southeastern Kentucky (Harlan County). Although I grew up in Florida and now live in Georgia, I consider myself a Kentuckian at heart!

  217. Question: If the law came from God, and the law said that a woman had to marry her rapist, does that imply that God harshly treats women?

  218. @ Tina:

    Honestly, I think it was more to deter the rapist and make some sort of solution for a society that has no holding tanks (jails/prisons) for law breakers.

    Know this also. If the Rapist was discovered mid-act, he was stoned.

  219. @ Tina:
    Once a Kentuckian, always a Kentuckian!
    My husband went to Clear Creek Baptist Bible College in Bell County. He is from Maine, but professeth himself to be a Kentuckian!

  220. All of these idiots that degrade women and girls from the pulpit *in the name of God*. ……… Do they not have daughters?????

  221. @ Tina:

    Also, you have to understand that turning a patriarchal, misogynistic society around takes time. A woman having to marry her rapist is a step up from having to be stoned while the rapist went free which was common in these tribalistic cultures that place a premium on controlling the uterus for the sake of its survival.

    I am looking for a long lost link to give to you that will open up a bit of understanding of this motivation.
    Standing where we are and looking back, the view isn’t so clear because we don’t see or understand where they are coming from.

  222. @ LT:
    Fair enough. I don’t disagree with the substance of your comment; more with how you worded things.

    I am not evangelical, and am thinking that accounts for a lot of the difference in perspective here. As to the song choice, i think it is in dubious taste, but would not put it in the terms that you use. My perspective regarding secular vs. sacred is a bit differentnthan yours.

    As to the event itself, it is baffling to me (why do it in the 1st place), but it might as well be tsking place in a parallel universe. I honedtly thought your original post on it was intended as a parody – until i got halfway through and realized it wasn’t.

  223. Tina wrote:

    I was born in Southeastern Kentucky (Harlan County)

    I have been there. One summer I spent several weeks in a locum tenens rotating between the hospital at Harlan and the one at Middlesboro. That is some great country around there.

  224. @ Tina:

    Okay, I finally found that link.
    Don’t let the name of the blog “White Washed Feminists” scare you. Some of the women writing for it were soft comps. The reason they took that name was a reaction to Patriarchalists who make Driscoll and Piper look like women liberators. These women were reacting to hardcore patriarchy, the kind that calls anyone who doesn’t agree with them white washed feminists. Those patriarchs would call Driscoll and Piper white washed feminists.

    Anyway, this article speaks about the obsession of ancient and present day cultures that tried/try to control the womb and the reasons behind such ardent control.

    https://whitewashedfeminist.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/the-womb-of-woman-gateway-to-life-guardian-of-culture/

    It doesn’t answer everything. But it does bring in some perspective.

  225. okrapod wrote:

    Tina wrote:
    I was born in Southeastern Kentucky (Harlan County)
    I have been there. One summer I spent several weeks in a locum tenens rotating between the hospital at Harlan and the one at Middlesboro. That is some great country around there.

    The hospital at Harlan was the one I was born in. One of my grandmothers was born in Middlesboro. You’re right, that is some great country.

  226. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Tina:
    Once a Kentuckian, always a Kentuckian!
    My husband went to Clear Creek Baptist Bible College in Bell County. He is from Maine, but professeth himself to be a Kentuckian!

    Bell County is just south of where I was born. One of my grandmothers was born in Bell County (in Middlesboro).

    Your husband is a wise man. 🙂

  227. @ Tina:

    Tina wrote: I was born in Southeastern Kentucky (Harlan County)

    okrapod wrote: I have been there. One summer I spent several weeks in a locum tenens rotating between the hospital at Harlan and the one at Middlesboro. That is some great country around there.

    Tina wrote: ……You’re right, that is some great country.
    +++++++++++++++++

    vicarious traveler here. chances are i’ll never make it to Kentucky. can you describe (in VIVID detail!) what makes it great country? is it scenic beauty? the feel of the place?

  228. @ the Deebs:

    You guys should do an article on Jael. I know there isn’t much in the way of Scripture on her other than the fact that she dispatched Sisera quite handily, but
    still though, combined with the story of the gal who cracked open Abimelech’s head with a mill stone (Judges 9) and then had his armorer run him through so it couldn’t be said that a ‘woman’ killed him, it would go a long way in showing that Scripture teaches no such thing as “gender roles” or “covering” for women.

  229. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Tina:
    Tina wrote: I was born in Southeastern Kentucky (Harlan County)
    okrapod wrote: I have been there. One summer I spent several weeks in a locum tenens rotating between the hospital at Harlan and the one at Middlesboro. That is some great country around there.
    Tina wrote: ……You’re right, that is some great country.
    +++++++++++++++++
    vicarious traveler here. chances are i’ll never make it to Kentucky. can you describe (in VIVID detail!) what makes it great country? is it scenic beauty? the feel of the place?

    All of the above, plus the people and the history. My mom is from Breathitt County, AKA “Bloody Breathitt”.

  230. LT wrote:

    I am not really sure why they do that in front of preteen and teens with raging hormones. You add in all this other stuff and you end up sexualizing the church.

    Forget the youth. I’m 40 something and a virgin who’d like to be married and having sex. Who knows when/if I am marrying. I’m celibate in the mean time.

    And I don’t need Christian talking heads or preachers extolling the wonders of married sex every third sermon, as they are wont to do.

    It’s like waving a big hunk of chocolate cake in the face of your friend who is dieting or diabetic and cannot eat a slice.

  231. LT wrote:

    lydia wrote:
    @ LT:
    Did I just read what I read? Tell me this is a joke.
    Not a joke at all. Nice eisegesis, huh? I meant what I said about not getting past moderation on other examples. It’s the “wink wink – titter titter” side of Gateway. Head Pastor Robert Morris’ wife Debbie Morris, who heads the entire Pink Women’s Ministry, decided to give a sermon this spring to just the young women of the church in order to try to get them to join the Pink Women’s Ministry. She opens the talk with a vulgar, tawdry story that had nothing to do with anything. I think she thought it would be a great ice breaker so the girls would laugh and think she was hip and funny, then they’d see how wild and fun Pink is. It didn’t seem to work.
    .
    One of the Tech Arts guys must have had a sense of humor because he kept cutting to audience shots on the jumbo screen showing the girls physically cringing, with looks of shock and disbelief, with their mouths hanging open, as the story got worse and worse. Her Women’s Ministry “squad” belly laughed, but it seemed pretty awkward for the other girls who realized that this woman was in the same demographic as their own mothers. If it was in a bar towards last call, it might have worked out a lot better. It was a frat house type story. However, this was in a sanctuary on the altar and was the opening for her sermon. She forgot the performer’s cardinal rule: Know your audience.
    .
    The worst part of the Joe Francis deal is that the Morrises have openly talked about their daughter’s highly immoral lifestyle as a teen and young adult. Elaine even preaches about being very wild so it is no secret. You would think that a woman like Debbie would have too much compassion for the Joe Francis girls’ plight to exploit that theme, realizing that could have been her own family. I have seen interviews of some of the girls from those films. Their stories are heart-breaking.
    .
    Now that Mark Driscoll is under Robert Morris’ tutelage can you imagine how bad his next teaching on Esther will be as he tries to one up the Pink ladies? This could get interesting.

    I find this interesting and strange, because just a week or two Robert Morris was giving a sermon about sexual purity on his televised weekly show on TBN.

    How can he be advocating on sexual purity on one TV show while his wife is telling smutty stories another day in their church or on church sponsored trips?

  232. @ Nancy2:

    I need a mental picture…. what’s the scenic beauty like? flat? rolling hills? lots of vegetation? what kinds of trees? details….. gimme details.

  233. elastigirl wrote:

    vicarious traveler here. chances are i’ll never make it to Kentucky. can you describe (in VIVID detail!) what makes it great country? is it scenic beauty? the feel of the place?

    Middlesboro is in the Cumberland Gap area of the Appalachian Mtns. So: history and scenery. Harlan had the larger hospital. More recent history: this area was part of coal mining country. The hospitals I referenced, and others, were originally started by the UMW at a time of pretty desperate circumstances for some coal miner families. They have changed hands since then, but the history is still there. The people tended to come from family traditions who know that life can be hard and that tough people survive, and within that context they are some of the nicest people on the planet (well, a lot of them that I met were.) The area has changed drastically since the mining industry has changed, but it still had that flavor when I was there, even though a lot of the mines were closed.

    There is (was at the time) the practice of bootleg whiskey. When I was there the counties were dry but taxi drivers sold out of the trunk of their cars (so they said) while Baptist preachers preached against it and between them they kept each other in business (so said the people at the time.) You got to like folks with that kind of attitude.

    Funny story. Some of us from the big city had heard that these folks had a tendency to violence. So when I went down there I was armed but not dangerous, and cautious. How embarrassing. I could not have been more mistaken about the people I ran into.

  234. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    I need a mental picture…. what’s the scenic beauty like? flat? rolling hills? lots of vegetation? what kinds of trees? details….. gimme details.

    Lots of hills; they are in the Appalachian Mountains; a history of self-reliance–although, according to relatives of mine who still live in the area, most people are dependent on the mailbox economy (the government check they get at the beginning of each month.)

  235. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Nancy2:
    I need a mental picture…. what’s the scenic beauty like? flat? rolling hills? lots of vegetation? what kinds of trees? details….. gimme details.

    Kentucky has everything. Mountains in the east (Harlan, Bell, Breathitt Counties, etc.) rolling hills in in the central (Layfayette [Lexington, home of the UK Wildcats!], Shelby county areas); flat in the in the southwest along the TN state line (Logan, Todd, Christian counties, etc.); Kentucky Lake (Tennesee River) and Lake Barkley (Cumberland River) in the west. There are coal mines in the east and west (mostly strip mines, now) with farm and pastureland in between. We have Churchill Downs, Mammoth Cave, Cumberland Gap, Ft. Knox, Ft. Campbell. …… I live not very far from the birthplace of Jefferson Davis, as well as the birthplace of Robert Penn Warren, and the National Corvette Museum in Bowling Green. We also have the Abe Lincoln birthplace. My mother is from Breathitt Co., in the east, but I am a lifelong Todd Countian — in the west. So, I’ve been pretty much all over the state. In my home county, the southern part is flat, while the northern part is hilly with hollows and cliffs.

    If you come to Kentucky and you don’t like the scenery, just take a 30 minute drive: the scenery will change. If you don’t like the weather, wait around a few minutes: that’ll change, too!

  236. @ elastigirl:
    Oops, trees: many varieties of oak and maple; elm, poplar, ash, pawpaw, sassafras, hickory, pine, cedar, sweet gum, Kentucky coffee trees. Mulberry, cottonwood ,walnut, sumac, buckeye ……..

    Oh, I also forgot to tell ha ….. If you ever visit eastern Kentucky, be careful around the churches. Some of the people handle rattlesnakes as part of their proof of faith. A preacher in Middlesboro got bit by one of his snakes and died a few months ago!

  237. Tina wrote:

    most people are dependent on the mailbox economy (the government check they get at the beginning of each month.)

    Is it due to black lung? I see that it has come back with a vengeance.

  238. Nancy2 wrote:

    Oh, I also forgot to tell ha ….. If you ever visit eastern Kentucky, be careful around the churches. Some of the people handle rattlesnakes as part of their proof of faith. A preacher in Middlesboro got bit by one of his snakes and died a few months ago!

    Is there where I tell folks that there are sometimes some less than positive feelings between the eastern and western parts of the state?

  239. And for the record, where I am from is up on the Indiana border. Used to was at Christmas when we shopped downtown (Shopping used to be downtown.) that cold air from Canada would come swooping down, pick up moisture when it crossed the Ohio, and the damp cold would cut right through you. I thought that was cold, until I went up north one winter for some CME and that put things in perspective.

  240. @ okrapod:
    Sometimes we just have to agree to the fact that we disagree. If somebody puts a snake in my face, I’m not gonna be very agreeable!

  241. okrapod wrote:

    Tina wrote:
    most people are dependent on the mailbox economy (the government check they get at the beginning of each month.)
    Is it due to black lung? I see that it has come back with a vengeance.

    From what I’ve seen, a lot of it is due to coal mines closing down, too. In some areas, there just aren’t enough jobs.
    There’s also a big drug problem in some areas. My husband did a jail ministry when he was in Pineville. Moat of the inmates were in on meth/oxycodone/hydrocodone related charges.

  242. Nancy2 wrote:

    Have you ever been to the Moonlight Barbeque in Owensboro?

    No, but when I was a freshman in college I had a big crush on a boy from Owensboro. He was so gorgeous, and I was so smitten.

  243. Very good article. Yeah, the “Esther was a slut” thing is not just insulting, it is ignorant and basically stupid. It doesn’t take a ton of research to understand the culture at the time. Having said that, I don’t think Driscoll cares one way or the other. His sermons have always been about “fresh and new” (and frankly shocking) interpretations. It’s his competitive differentiator.

  244. The twisted judgment that Esther is a “slut” seems more concerning to Driscoll and “ilk”. than what Esther did for the Jewish people. They don’t see the whole picture but blow up something to what it really isn’t.

  245. @ okrapod:

    “Used to was at Christmas when we shopped downtown (Shopping used to be downtown.) that cold air from Canada would come swooping down, pick up moisture when it crossed the Ohio, and the damp cold would cut right through you.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Used to was at Christmas when we…” — (taking a risk here, but…) that sounds very cute – ‘Used to was…’ — I haven’t heard that expression before — is it autocorrect weirdness, or a Kentucky way of saying things?

    (I’ve really got my vicarious traveler’s hat on right now — travelling through Kentucky at my kitchen table, spending time with locals — and please pardon whatever amount of ignorance I’ve got going on here)

  246. Upon reflection of the post’s title:
    Queen Esther Was Not a Slut: The Harsh Treatment of Women in the Old Testament

    I never in the past ever thought of Esther as a slut.

    It’s sad that a post like this is necessary, that there are Christians who actually promote the idea that Esther was a bimbo, so this even has to be corrected.

    Sexism runs very deep among some parts of Christendom. 🙁

  247. @ elastigirl:
    Naw, that ain’t a Kentucky way a sayin’ thangs. It’s either auto correct, or that cold air from Canada still has ‘er all choked up!

  248. @ elastigirl:

    I don’t know where I heard ‘used to was’ but it is similar to ‘time was’ and is probably kin to that. I like to listen to how people talk and have been exposed to east Texas (my mom) and eastern NC (lived there quite a while and all sorts of people end up in the hospital, so who knows where I heard it. Perhaps I read it some where. I have heard lots of ethnic variations of speech also, so maybe it came from that. I enjoy expressions like that, and it is a cheap hobby with minimal side effects and it does not make you fat. But no, my hometown was Louisville, and that is not from Louisville.

  249. @ okrapod:
    I’ve heard the phrase “used to be” a lot around my neck of the woods, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard “used to was”.

  250. @ okrapod:

    thanks for responding. I think it’s cute. I’ll try it on for size.

    I love collecting colloquialisms, too. my foreign husband keeps me supplied.

  251. @ Nancy2:

    Thank you, Nancy2, Tina, and Okrapod for all your description! I’ve been exploring on google maps tonight. Looks beautiful, indeed.

    I remember some years ago watching a series on Frontline called Country Boys, chronicling the lives of 2 teen age boys in Appalachia (I think it was Kentucky), and the challenges they faced. It was captivating. I came to care very deeply for them (as did many viewers).

  252. I just posted this to another thread for Gram3 and others, but realized that parts of it also fit this thread:

    A Deadly Formula for Violence
    http://www.soencouragement.org/deadlyformula.htm

    Here is just a part of it (the whole page is pretty good, though):

    Men have been leading for the past millenniums, even in their absence through female supporters of the traditional patriarchal family management.

    Dr. James Alsdurf, in the book Battered Into Submission, cites author Karen Lindsay who challenges the myth “that if people would only stop worrying about their own personal fulfillment and return to the loving bosom of the patriarchal family, the world would be a happy place.”

    She indicates that the perspective that we need to return to the good old days before the breakdown of the nuclear family is a myth.

    It ignores the issue of intra-family abuse which has always been a reality. When was the golden age of the happy family? She indicates that in reality there has never been a golden age.

    History reveals abuses against women and children from the beginning of time.

  253. Is this view that Queen Esther was a “slut” or neo Arianism of ESS a “downgrade” from orthodoxy?

  254. okrapod wrote:

    There is (was at the time) the practice of bootleg whiskey.

    My grandfathers were a bootlegger and a moonshiner. The moonshiner taught me how to make white lightning when I was a wee tot. Come TEOTWAWKI, I fully intend to keep myslef going by taking up the 😉 Family Business.

  255. zooey111 wrote:

    My grandfathers were a bootlegger and a moonshiner. The moonshiner taught me how to make white lightning when I was a wee tot. Come TEOTWAWKI, I fully intend to keep myslef going by taking up the Family Business.

    That is awesome. I more or less know how to let various fruit juices ferment into one thing or another, but that is about it. When my son was a prosecutor in the mountains here he told me that people up there really respected making illegal stuff. Not infrequently when somebody got sent off to prison for something which people would not respect (like robbery or such) the family would claim to one and all that they were caught making whiskey and got sent off for that. It made them a local hero of sorts.

    I think the most popular substance may have shifted now from something you distill to something you grow, however.

    There ought to be a way to survive come the great disaster. I plan to open up a clinic in my basement-do the best I can for folks, which would not be much. Herbs and bandages mostly with a little something fermented to ease the pain perhaps.

  256. @ Mark:
    I truly believe that it was a warmed up heresy that was found “not a hers, after all” when it led to a way to permanently sideline women.

  257. numo wrote:

    @ LT:
    Fair enough. I don’t disagree with the substance of your comment; more with how you worded things.
    I am not evangelical, and am thinking that accounts for a lot of the difference in perspective here. As to the song choice, i think it is in dubious taste, but would not put it in the terms that you use. My perspective regarding secular vs. sacred is a bit differentnthan yours.
    As to the event itself, it is baffling to me (why do it in the 1st place), but it might as well be tsking place in a parallel universe. I honedtly thought your original post on it was intended as a parody – until i got halfway through and realized it wasn’t.

    I totally hear you on all of this. I have some background with ancient cultures so I know the global definition of sacred (as applied to Cohen) is different. I love Leonard Cohen’s lyrics. I think his eclectic, introspective background leads to some amazing poetry and music that you’d never see in suburbia. My objection was to these lady pastors taking more sexual, secular material and passing it off as devout, meaningful, Christian worship experience to their younger more innocent flock. It’s wrong and a bit creepy that the grandmas and expecting moms are the ones leading in this way. They are doing all of Mark Driscoll’s heavy lifting for him. At the end of the day I wouldn’t be surprised to hear Mark telling Debbie to ease up a bit.

  258. Daisy wrote:

    LT wrote:
    lydia wrote:
    @ LT:

    I find this interesting and strange, because just a week or two Robert Morris was giving a sermon about sexual purity on his televised weekly show on TBN.
    How can he be advocating on sexual purity on one TV show while his wife is telling smutty stories another day in their church or on church sponsored trips?

    In a word – Hypocrisy. The bigger hypocrite there is Robert Morris who has been forced to take significant time off throughout his pastoring career to deal with his “demons of lust”. It’s a long story but he blames both his and his daughters immoral choices on his mother fostering a “root of bitterness” due to her father’s untimely death. He and his daughter have both had those demons exorcised so he’s all good to preach on purity now (till the demons creep back in anyway).

    From a practical perspective, Pastrix Debbie preaches to the Women’s conference not Sunday services. Her bawdy little story about body fluids and naked men on public transportation occurred during a special young adult “girls only” service on a Tuesday night this past spring. You’d have to attend the cruise and hang out in the casinos or lounges with the ladies and their guaranteed personable mixologist to get the deeper dirt. What happens at their private island in the Bahamas, stays on that private island. Just like Jesus said it should in The Beatitudes. “Blessed are the nasty for they shall receive tax exempt status and rake in over one hundred million a year.”

    If you know where to look, it is right there in plain site and in abundance. However, at Gateway, PR is under the media department and they will never release any of the saucy stuff to TBN or Daystar. Last week Robert made jokes about Native Americans having the grammar skills of a lazy three year old. He told different versions of the same ridiculously long and not funny joke, at all five services for his big return from his ten week sabbatical. Thanks to the power of editing you’re not going to see that on Gateway’s website or TBN/Daystar either. But at least 30,000 people did see and hear it.

    Sadly for Christendom, Morris revealed today that he will be personally co-leading a revival next July for over 75,000 pastors at Cowboy’s Stadium. Soon his filth will be infecting churches all over the United States. Get ready folks.

  259. @LT,

    Wow, what a sad and bad story. I really wished I had been in a Sunday morning bowling league instead of a crazed Neo-Cal church. I would have had more fun and gotten a cool shirt with my name on it.

  260. @ dee: I just find it curious that the neo Calvinist movement proponents taut their movement as a return to orthodoxy and one of their Herod is Charles Spurgeon. One of the arguments Spugeon made during the “downgrade” controversy was against speculative theology, and so much of the neo Calvinist movement is speculative in nature, and it is morphing into something that is anything but orthodox. There was a time I found their thinking attractive because it was biblically based, but what is based on conservative scholarship can also be heretical. This is not Fosdick liberalism but scarier as far as I am concerned. Fiosdick eschewed orthodox doctrine, yet I am uncertain he didn’t respect those he disagreed with. These people claim to be upholders of orthodox doctrine, which they are morphing away from, and they have no respect towards those they disagree with, and they discipline those who chose to leave their fellowships. And those who notice error are punished.

  261. Velour wrote:

    @LT,
    Wow, what a sad and bad story. I really wished I had been in a Sunday morning bowling league instead of a crazed Neo-Cal church. I would have had more fun and gotten a cool shirt with my name on it.

    Hahaha. I bet your league wouldn’t have cost you 10% of your gross income either.

  262. @ LT:
    Could you maybe drop “pastrix,” “lady pastors” and whatnot? I don’t care what these women are saying (they could be entirely orthodox) – “pastrix” is a slur, like the N-word and lots of other unsavory terms that i won’t repeat here.

    Fwiw, i am outside this entire controversy, and if shocked by anything about it, the main thing is materialism. I do not agree with these women, but i won’t slam them by using derogatory tetms for them. Nobody deserves that.

  263. LT wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    @LT,
    Wow, what a sad and bad story. I really wished I had been in a Sunday morning bowling league instead of a crazed Neo-Cal church. I would have had more fun and gotten a cool shirt with my name on it.

    Hahaha. I bet your league wouldn’t have cost you 10% of your gross income either.

    There’s the saving 10% + the added bonus of not having to get dressed up in a dress, hose, and heels every Sunday morning, not having to cook on Saturday for Sunday’s church meal, and on and on.

    I still need to figure out a cool name for a bowling league.

  264. @ Velour:
    Ummm, not exactly. One of them, Nadia Bolz-Weber, was repeatedly called that as a slur. She chose it for the title of her book.

  265. My problem is historical context. When discussing the role of women in the OT, the main problem is that rarely is historical and sociological context used. It’s the same with the role of women in the NT. The Bible in general is very much a sociological study of its historical era. While the role of women might change culture by culture, in the ancient ‘classical’ world their lives remained very much the same. Women before the Exodus may have had more power than they did after it – but the world was also changing. The Greeks were developing quite a bit of influence by then, and the Greeks are the ones who literally wrote the book (which is still used, metaphorically) about the role of women.

    Women during the time of Ester had more power, but the Hebrews were also forgetting who they were, not as a religion but as a culture. One of my favorite aspects of ancient Hebrew culture is the (very modern) adaptability of the Jewish woman when it came to fashion, which was also seen as culture. You cannot look on any historical character, time, or culture from modern day perspective.

    The most oppressed women of the Bible were those who lived during the time of Christ, especially in Judea. By then, an entire segment of the population and adopted Greek culture to the point where the average Jewish male was involved in a discussion about how to reverse the appearance of circumcision so they could hang out, naked, with the other guys, and not stand out in the crowd. While the Romans had a modicum of respect for women, the Greeks did not. We see Paul battling this, even within himself. He was more Greek, and far more Roman than he was Jewish. He grew up in a blended culture, which explains why as Saul, he was even more Jewish than the Jews in Judea. He had to be to prove who he was.

    The Greek way of treating women, which was pervasive in Judean society, was also the basis for the way Mohammed’s new religion treated woman. If you want to understand how the average Judean woman lived during the time of Christ, just look at the way the Taliban treats women today. And – this was not how women in the OT were treated.

    One of the sociological problems Jesus of Nazareth caused was the fact that he treated women as equals. That could not be allowed. If you don’t have context, you lose the story. Unfortunately, today, we are living in a world of abject historical ignorance.

  266. @ SJ Reidhead:This is very interesting comment . What you write about Greek culture is accurate. Women were cloistered and veiled in misogynistic Greek culture. How much we read in the Epistles could have been culturally expedient rules to decrease persecution of Christians by dominant Greek culture? There is so much we can’t understand. Through eons of time and falls of empires and civilizations so much has been lost.

  267. SJ Reidhead wrote:

    The Greek way of treating women, which was pervasive in Judean society, was also the basis for the way Mohammed’s new religion treated woman. If you want to understand how the average Judean woman lived during the time of Christ, just look at the way the Taliban treats women today.

    And the Greek way of the time had NO homosexuality taboo like Judaism & Islam. Since women were nothing more than breeders and animate property, the only way to have sex with another person was with another man. As was said at the time, “Women for breeding stock, Men for love, Boys for pleasure.” And without a homosexuality taboo, you don’t have anything pulling in the other direction.

    (I long ago concluded that a Male Supremacist culture with a Homosexuality Taboo would always find the two in direct conflict. The usual workaround is some form of Rank Hath Its Privileges where the Alpha Males of the society can indulge themselves and the taboo is only enforced on their inferiors. Just like a lot of the churches exposed at TWW.)

  268. Velour wrote:

    It’s my understanding that “pastrix” is used by the Emergent Crowd in their writings.

    In my church (RCC) advocates of female ordination use the word “Womanpriest”.
    Never mind that there’s a long-established word for female clergy: Priestess.

  269. Pingback: URL